House of Lords

==History==
Today's Parliament of the United Kingdom largely descends, in practice, from the [[Parliament of England]], through the [[Treaty of Union]] of 1706 and the [[Acts of Union, 1707|Acts of Union]] that implemented and executed the Treaty in 1707 and created a new [[Parliament of Great Britain]] to replace the Parliament of England and the  [[Parliament of Scotland]]. This new parliament was, in effect, the continuation of the Parliament of England with the addition of 45 [[Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)|Members of Parliament]] (MPs) and 16 Peers to represent Scotland.

The House of Lords developed from the "Great Council" (''[[Magnum Concilium]]'') that advised the king during medieval times, dating back to the early 11th century.<ref name=loveland1>[[#Loveland|Loveland]] (2009) p. 158</ref> This royal council came to be composed of ecclesiastics, noblemen, and representatives of the [[Historic counties of England|counties of England]] and [[Historic counties of Wales|Wales]] (afterwards, representatives of the [[Parliamentary borough|boroughs]] as well). The first English Parliament is often considered to be either [[Simon de Montfort's Parliament]] (held in 1265) or the "[[Model Parliament]]" (held in 1295), which included archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and representatives of the shires and boroughs.

The power of Parliament grew slowly, fluctuating as the strength of the monarchy grew or declined. For example, during much of the reign of [[Edward II of England|Edward II]] (1307–1327), the [[nobility]] was supreme, the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|Crown]] weak, and the shire and borough representatives entirely powerless.

During the reign of King Edward II's successor, [[Edward III of England|Edward III]], Parliament clearly separated into two distinct [[debating chamber|chambers]]: the [[House of Commons of England|House of Commons]] (consisting of the shire and borough representatives) and the House of Lords (consisting of the archbishops, bishops, abbots and nobility).<ref>{{cite book|last=Russell |first=Meg |date=2013 |title=The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/27542/chapter-abstract/197523197?redirectedFrom=fulltext |access-date=2 June 2023 |website=academic.oup.com |chapter=2 A Brief History of the House of Lords}}</ref> The authority of Parliament continued to grow, and during the early 15th century both Houses exercised powers to an extent not seen before. The Lords were far more powerful than the Commons because of the great influence of the great landowners and the prelates of the realm.

The power of the nobility declined during the civil wars of the late 15th century, known as the [[Wars of the Roses]]. Much of the nobility was killed on the battlefield or executed for participation in the war, and many aristocratic estates were lost to the Crown. Moreover, [[feudalism]] was dying, and the [[feudal]] armies controlled by the [[baron]]s became obsolete. [[Henry VII of England|Henry VII]] (1485–1509) clearly established the supremacy of the monarch, symbolised by the "Crown Imperial". The domination of the Sovereign continued to grow during the reigns of the [[Tudor dynasty|Tudor monarchs]] in the 16th century. The Crown was at the height of its power during the reign of [[Henry VIII]] (1509–1547).

The House of Lords remained more powerful than the House of Commons, but the Lower House continued to grow in influence, reaching a zenith in relation to the House of Lords during the middle 17th century. Conflicts between the King and the Parliament (for the most part, the House of Commons) ultimately led to the [[English Civil War]] during the 1640s. In 1649, after the defeat and execution of [[Charles I of England|King Charles I]], the [[Commonwealth of England]] was declared, but the nation was effectively under the overall control of [[Oliver Cromwell]], [[Lord Protector|Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland]].

The House of Lords was reduced to a largely powerless body, with Cromwell and his supporters in the Commons dominating the Government. On 19 March 1649, the House of Lords was abolished by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of England [find] by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England."<ref>{{cite book|title=Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660|publisher=[[His Majesty's Stationery Office]]|year=1911|chapter=March 1649: An Act for the Abolishing the House of Peers.|chapter-url=https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/p24|via=British History Online}}</ref> The House of Lords did not assemble again until the [[Convention Parliament (1660)|Convention Parliament]] met in 1660 and the monarchy was restored. It returned to its former position as the more powerful chamber of Parliament—a position it would occupy until the 19th century.

[[File:Queen Anne in the House of Lords by Peter Tillemans.jpeg|thumb|[[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne]] addressing the House of Lords, c. 1708–1714, by [[Peter Tillemans]] ]]
[[File:House of lords and princes chamber.jpg|right|thumb|alt=A monochrome illustration of several short buildings clustered in a small space. A yard in the foreground is filled with detritus.|An early 19th-century illustration showing the east wall of the House of Lords in the centre.]]
[[File:David Lloyd George 1902.jpg|thumb|The rejection of the [[People's Budget]], proposed by [[David Lloyd George]] (above), precipitated a political crisis in 1909.]]
[[File:Passing of the Parliament Bill, 1911 - Project Gutenberg eText 19609.jpg|thumb| The House of Lords voting for the [[Parliament Act 1911]] ]]

===19th century===
The 19th century was marked by several changes to the House of Lords. The House, once a body of only about 50&nbsp;members, had been greatly enlarged by the liberality of [[George III]] and his successors in creating peerages. The individual influence of a Lord of Parliament was thus diminished.

Moreover, the power of the House as a whole decreased, whilst that of the House of Commons grew. Particularly notable in the development of the Lower House's superiority was the [[Reform Act 1832|Reform Act of 1832]]. The electoral system of the House of Commons was far from democratic: property qualifications greatly restricted the size of the electorate, and the boundaries of many constituencies had not been changed for centuries. Entire cities such as [[Manchester]] had not even one representative in the House of Commons, while the 11 voters of [[Old Sarum (UK Parliament constituency)|Old Sarum]] retained their ancient right to elect two MPs despite living elsewhere. A small borough was susceptible to bribery, and was often under the control of a patron, whose nominee was guaranteed to win an election. Some aristocrats were patrons of numerous "[[rotten borough|pocket boroughs]]", and therefore controlled a considerable part of the membership of the House of Commons.

When the House of Commons passed a Reform Bill to correct some of these anomalies in 1831, the House of Lords rejected the proposal. The popular cause of reform, however, was not abandoned by the ministry, despite a second rejection of the bill in 1832. Prime Minister [[Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey]] advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80&nbsp;new pro-Reform peers. [[William IV of the United Kingdom|William IV]] originally balked at the proposal, which effectively threatened the opposition of the House of Lords, but at length relented.

Before the new peers were created, however, the Lords who opposed the bill admitted defeat and abstained from the vote, allowing the passage of the bill. The crisis damaged the political influence of the House of Lords but did not altogether end it. A vital reform was effected by the Lords themselves in 1868, when they changed their standing orders to abolish proxy voting, preventing Lords from voting without taking the trouble to attend.<ref>McKechnie, ''The reform of the House of Lords'' etc.</ref> Over the course of the century the powers of the upper house were further reduced stepwise, culminating in the 20th century with the [[Parliament Act 1911]]; the Commons gradually became the stronger House of Parliament.

===20th century===
[[File:1911-New-Perrs-UK-Punch.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|left|''Punch'' 1911 cartoon shows Asquith and Lloyd George preparing coronets for 500 new peers to threaten takeover of the House of Lords]]

The status of the House of Lords returned to the forefront of debate after the election of a Liberal Government in 1906. In 1909 the [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], [[David Lloyd George]], introduced into the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] the "[[People's Budget]]", which proposed a land tax targeting wealthy landowners. The popular measure, however, was defeated in the heavily Conservative House of Lords.<ref>[[George Dangerfield]], ''[[The Strange Death of Liberal England]]'' (1935) [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175390 online free]</ref>

Having made the powers of the House of Lords a primary campaign issue, the Liberals were narrowly re-elected in [[January 1910 United Kingdom general election|January 1910]]. The Liberals had lost most of their support in the Lords, which was routinely rejecting Liberals' bills. Prime Minister [[H. H. Asquith]] then proposed that the powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed. After a further [[December 1910 United Kingdom general election|general election in December 1910]], and with a reluctant promise by King [[George V]] to create sufficient new Liberal peers to overcome the Lords' opposition to the measure if necessary, the Asquith Government secured the passage of a bill to curtail the powers of the House of Lords.<ref>Kenneth Rose, ''King George V'' (1984) pp. 113, 121.</ref> The [[Parliament Act 1911]] effectively abolished the power of the House of Lords to reject legislation, or to amend it in a way unacceptable to the House of Commons; and most bills could be delayed for no more than three parliamentary sessions or two calendar years. It was not meant to be a permanent solution; more comprehensive reforms were planned.<ref>R. C. K. Ensor, ''England 1870–1914'' (1936), p. 430–432.</ref><ref>Alfred L.P. Dennis, "The Parliament Act of 1911, II". ''American Political Science Review'' (1912): 386–408.</ref> Neither party, however, pursued reforms with much enthusiasm, and the House of Lords remained primarily hereditary. The [[Parliament Act 1949]] reduced the delaying power of the House of Lords further to two sessions or one year. In 1958, the predominantly hereditary nature of the House of Lords was changed by the [[Life Peerages Act 1958]], which authorised the creation of life baronies, with no numerical limits. The number of life peers then gradually increased, though not at a constant rate.<ref>Chris Ballinger, ''The House of Lords 1911–2011: a century of non-reform'' (Bloomsbury, 2014).</ref>

The Labour Party had, for most of the 20th century, a commitment, based on the party's historic opposition to class privilege, to abolish the House of Lords, or at least expel the hereditary element. In 1968 the Labour Government of [[Harold Wilson]] attempted to reform the House of Lords by introducing a system under which hereditary peers would be allowed to remain in the House and take part in debate, but would be unable to vote. This plan, however, was defeated in the House of Commons by a coalition of traditionalist Conservatives (such as [[Enoch Powell]]), and Labour members who continued to advocate the outright abolition of the Upper House (such as [[Michael Foot]]).

When Foot became leader of the Labour Party in 1980, abolition of the House of Lords became a part of the party's agenda; under his successor, [[Neil Kinnock]], however, a reformed Upper House was proposed instead. In the meantime, the creation of new hereditary peerages (except for members of the Royal Family) has been arrested, with the exception of three that were created during the administration of Conservative PM [[Margaret Thatcher]] in the 1980s.

Whilst some hereditary peers were at best apathetic, the Labour Party's clear commitments were not lost on [[Merlin Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley]], who for decades was considered an expert on the House of Lords. In December 1979 the [[Conservative Monday Club]] published his extensive paper entitled ''Lords Reform – Why tamper with the House of Lords?'' and in July 1980 [[International Monarchist League|''The Monarchist'']] carried another article by Sudeley entitled "Why Reform or Abolish the House of Lords?".<ref>''The Monarchist'', no. 57, p.&nbsp;27–34</ref> In 1990 he wrote a further booklet for the Monday Club entitled "The Preservation of the House of Lords".

===21st century===

In 2019, a seven-month enquiry by Naomi Ellenbogen QC found that one in five staff of the House had experienced bullying or harassment which they did not report for fear of reprisals.<ref>{{cite news |publisher=BBC |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48935860|title=House of Lords staff 'bullied and harassed'|date=10 July 2019|access-date=10 July 2019}}</ref> This was preceded by several cases, including Liberal Democrat [[Anthony Lester, Baron Lester of Herne Hill|Anthony Lester, Lord Lester of Herne&nbsp;Hill]], of Lords using their position to sexually harass or abuse women.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/10/house-of-lords-staff-too-scared-to-complain-about-harassment|title=House of Lords staff too scared to complain about harassment|last=Syal|first=Rajeev|date=10 July 2019|work=The Guardian|access-date=10 July 2019|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.sky.com/story/toxic-behaviour-towards-house-of-lords-staff-revealed-in-qcs-report-11760578|title='Toxic' behaviour towards House of Lords staff revealed in QC's report|website=Sky News|date=11 July 2019|access-date=11 July 2019}}</ref>

In 2020, the [[Second Johnson ministry|Johnson government]] considered moving the House of Lords from London to a city in [[Northern England]], likely [[York]], or [[Birmingham]], in the [[Midlands]], in an attempt to "reconnect" the area. It was unclear how the [[State Opening of Parliament|King's Speech]] would be conducted in the event of a move.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/19/house-of-lords-may-move-out-of-london-to-reconnect-with-public|title=House of Lords may move out of London to 'reconnect' with public|date=19 January 2020|work=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=19 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-sends-the-house-of-lords-up-north-r803s6pfx|title=Boris Johnson sends the House of Lords up north|date=19 January 2020|work=[[The Times]]|access-date=19 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51168744|title=House of Lords 'could move to York or Birmingham' – Tory chairman|date=20 January 2020|work=[[BBC]]|access-date=20 January 2020}}</ref> The idea was received negatively by many peers.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/19/peers-attack-boris-johnsons-ridiculous-idea-move-house-lords/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/19/peers-attack-boris-johnsons-ridiculous-idea-move-house-lords/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Peers attack Boris Johnson's 'ridiculous idea' to move House of Lords|date=19 January 2020|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]|access-date=20 January 2020}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

===Lords reform===
{{Main|Reform of the House of Lords}}With the advent of democratic politics in the United Kingdom, beginning with the [[Reform Acts]] from 1832 to 1928, the aristocratic House of Lords was increasingly perceived as an [[anachronism]]. Many attempts to reform it have been made, and some have succeeded, most notably the removal of most [[hereditary peer]]s in 1999. As of 2024, the policy of the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] is to abolish the House of Lords, and to replace it with an elected second chamber,<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-12-19 |title=House of Lords: What is it and what could Labour replace it with? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63864428 |access-date=2024-04-01 |work=BBC |language=en-GB}}</ref> albeit not in the first term of a Labour government.<ref>{{Cite web |date=4 February 2024 |title=Labour delays plans to abolish House of Lords |url=https://www.ft.com/content/e7935e2e-acd9-4f61-bc6d-f0b3b5c07357 |access-date=2024-04-01 |website=Financial Times}}</ref>

====First admission of women====
{{Main|Women in the House of Lords}}
There were no women sitting in the House of Lords until 1958, when a small number came into the chamber as a result of the [[Life Peerages Act 1958]]. One of these was [[Irene Curzon, 2nd Baroness Ravensdale]], who had inherited her father's peerage in 1925 and was made a life peer to enable her to sit. After a campaign stretching back in some cases to the 1920s, another twelve women who held hereditary peerages in their own right were admitted with the passage of the [[Peerage Act 1963]].

====New Labour era====
The Labour Party included in its 1997 general election [[manifesto]] a commitment to remove the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords.<ref>{{cite news |title=Labour's 1997 pledges: The constitution |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=23 March 2013 |date=6 May 2002 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/2002/blair_years/1959867.stm}}</ref> Their subsequent election victory in 1997 under [[Tony Blair]] led to the denouement of the traditional House of Lords. The Labour government introduced legislation to expel all hereditary peers from the Upper House as a first step in Lords reform. As a part of a compromise, however, it agreed to permit 92 hereditary peers to remain until the reforms were complete. Thus, all but 92 hereditary peers were expelled under the [[House of Lords Act 1999]] (see below for its provisions), making the House of Lords predominantly an appointed house.

Since 1999, however, no further reform has taken place. In 2000, the [[Wakeham Commission]] proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised.<ref>{{cite news |title=Lords report fails to satisfy |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=23 March 2013 |date=20 January 2000 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/611889.stm}}</ref> A [[parliamentary Joint Committee]] was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80% elected, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all of these options were defeated, although the 80% elected option fell by just three votes in the Commons.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c560740f0b62dffde16ed/7027.pdf |title=The House of Lords: Reform |publisher=[[The Stationery Office]] |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-10-170272-0 |location=London |pages=15–17 |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231027082212/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c560740f0b62dffde16ed/7027.pdf |archive-date=27 October 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> Socialist MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the options.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=White |first1=Michael |last2=Wintour |first2=Patrick |date=4 February 2003 |title=MPs reject all options for Lords |work=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/05/uk.houseofcommons1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231027082336/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/05/uk.houseofcommons1 |archive-date=27 October 2023}}</ref>

In 2005, a cross-party group of senior MPs ([[Kenneth Clarke]], [[Paul Tyler]], [[Tony Wright (Staffordshire politician)|Tony Wright]], [[Sir George Young, 6th Baronet|George Young]], and [[Robin Cook]]) published a report proposing that 70% of members of the House of Lords should be elected – each member for a single long term – by the [[single transferable vote]] system. Most of the remainder were to be appointed by a Commission to ensure a mix of "skills, knowledge and experience". This proposal was also not implemented. A cross-party campaign initiative called "[[Elect the Lords]]" was set up to make the case for a predominantly elected Upper Chamber in the run up to the [[2005 United Kingdom general election|2005 general election]].

At the 2005 election, the Labour Party proposed further reform of the Lords, but without specific details.<ref>{{cite news |title=Election issues: Constitutional Reform |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=23 March 2013 |date=5 April 2005 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/issues/4372135.stm}}</ref> The Conservative Party, which had, prior to 1997, opposed any tampering with the House of Lords,<ref>Lord Sudeley, "Lords Reform – Why Tamper with the House of Lords?", Monday Club publication, December 1979 (P/B).</ref> favoured an 80% elected Lords, while the Liberal Democrats called for a fully elected [[Senate]]. During 2006, a cross-party committee discussed Lords reform, with the aim of reaching a consensus: its [[Reform of the House of Lords#2007 white paper|findings]] were published in early 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7027/7027.pdf |title=The House of Lords: Reform Cm 7027 |access-date=9 April 2010}}</ref>

On 7 March 2007, members of the House of Commons voted ten times on a variety of alternative compositions for the Upper Chamber.<ref>{{cite news |title=MPs back all-elected Lords plan |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=23 March 2013 |date=7 March 2007 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6420965.stm}}</ref> Outright abolition, a wholly appointed, a 20% elected, a 40% elected, a 50% elected, and a 60% elected House of Lords were all defeated in turn. Finally, the vote for an 80% elected Lords was won by 305 votes to 267, and the vote for a wholly elected Lords was won by an even greater margin, 337 to 224. Significantly, this last vote represented an overall majority of MPs.<ref>{{cite news |last=Assinder |first=Nick |title=Where now for Lords reform? |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=23 March 2013 |date=14 March 2007 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6449747.stm}}</ref>

Furthermore, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% – whose result was already known when the vote on 100% took place – this showed a clear preference for a fully elected Upper House among those who voted for the only other option that passed. But this was nevertheless only an indicative vote, and many political and legislative hurdles remained to be overcome for supporters of an elected House of Lords. Lords, soon after, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed House of Lords.<ref>{{cite news |title=Peers reject Lords reform plans |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=23 March 2013 |date=14 March 2007 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6446887.stm}}</ref>

In July 2008, [[Jack Straw]], the [[Secretary of State for Justice]] and [[Lord Chancellor]], introduced a [[white paper]] to the House of Commons proposing to replace the House of Lords with an 80–100% elected chamber, with one third being elected at each general election, to serve a term of approximately 12–15 years.<ref>{{cite news |title=Straw unveils elected Lords plan |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=23 March 2013 |date=14 July 2008 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7504820.stm}}</ref> The white paper stated that, as the peerage would be totally separated from membership of the Upper House, the name "House of Lords" would no longer be appropriate. It went on to explain that there was cross-party consensus for the Chamber to be re-titled the "Senate of the United Kingdom"; however, to ensure the debate remained on the role of the Upper House rather than its title, the white paper was neutral on the title issue.

On 30 November 2009, a ''Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords'' was agreed by them. Certain amendments were agreed by them on 30 March 2010 and on 12 June 2014.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.parliament.uk/documents/WIS-news/Code-of-Conduct-for-Members-of-the-House-of-Lords.pdf |website=parliament.uk |title=Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords |publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] |edition=4th |date=May 2015 |page=2}}</ref>

The [[United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal|scandal over expenses]] in the Commons was at its highest pitch only six months before, and the Labourite leadership under [[Janet Royall, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]] determined that something sympathetic should be done.{{citation needed|date=July 2015}}

[[Meg Russell]] stated in an article, "Is the House of Lords already reformed?", three essential features of a legitimate House of Lords: The first was that it must have adequate powers over legislation to make the government think twice before making a decision. The House of Lords, she argued, had enough power to make it relevant. (In his first year, Tony Blair was defeated 38 times in the Lords—but that was before the major reform with the House of Lords Act 1999.) Second, as to the composition of the Lords, Meg Russell suggested that the composition must be distinct from the Commons, otherwise it would render the Lords useless. Third was the perceived legitimacy of the Lords. She stated, "In general legitimacy comes with election."<ref name="russell">{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/1467-923X.00540 |issn=0032-3179 |volume=74 |issue=3 |pages=311‒318 |last=Russell |first=Meg |title=Is the House of Lords Already Reformed? |journal=The Political Quarterly |date=July 2003}}</ref>

====2010–present====
[[File:Lord Judge (51111275854).jpg|thumb|The House of Lords paid tribute to [[Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh]], 12 April 2021]]
The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreed, after the 2010 general election, to outline clearly a provision for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber, elected by proportional representation. These proposals sparked a debate on 29 June 2010. As an interim measure, appointment of new peers would reflect the shares of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

Detailed proposals for Lords reform, including a draft House of Lords Reform Bill, were published on 17 May 2011. These included a 300-member hybrid house, of whom 80% would be elected. A further 20% would be appointed, and reserve space would be included for some Church of England archbishops and bishops. Under the proposals, members would also serve single non-renewable terms of 15&nbsp;years. Former MPs would be allowed to stand for election to the Upper House, but members of the Upper House would not be immediately allowed to become MPs.

The details of the proposal were:<ref>{{cite report |date=May 2011 |title=House of Lords Reform Draft Bill |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229020/8077.pdf |publisher=HM Government |pages=7–9 |access-date=18 January 2016}}</ref>
* The upper chamber shall continue to be known as the House of Lords for legislative purposes.
* The reformed House of Lords should have 300 members of whom 240 are "Elected Members" and 60 appointed "Independent Members". Up to 12 Church of England archbishops and bishops may sit in the house as ''ex officio'' "Lords Spiritual".
* Elected Members will serve a single, non-renewable term of 15&nbsp;years.
* Elections to the reformed Lords should take place at the same time as elections to the House of Commons.
* Elected Members should be elected using the [[Single Transferable Vote]] system of proportional representation.
* Twenty Independent Members (a third) shall take their seats within the reformed house at the same time as elected members do so, and for the same 15-year term.
* Independent Members will be appointed by the King after being proposed by the Prime Minister acting on advice of an Appointments Commission.
* There will no longer be a link between the peerage system and membership of the upper house.
* The current powers of the House of Lords would not change and the House of Commons shall retain its status as the primary House of Parliament.

The proposals were considered by a Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform made up of both MPs and Peers, which issued its final report on 23 April 2012, making the following suggestions:<ref>{{cite web |title=House of Lords reform |url=https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/lords-reform/}}</ref>
* The reformed House of Lords should have 450 members.
* Party groupings, including the Crossbenchers, should choose which of their members are retained in the transition period, with the percentage of members allotted to each group based on their share of the peers with high attendance during a given period.
* Up to 12 Lords Spiritual should be retained in a reformed House of Lords.

Deputy Prime Minister [[Nick Clegg]] introduced the [[House of Lords Reform Bill 2012]] on 27 June 2012<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmagenda/ob120627.htm|title=Order of Business|date=27 June 2012|website=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]|access-date=2 June 2023}}</ref> which built on proposals published on 17 May 2011.<ref name="House of Lords reform proposals">{{cite web |url=http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/proposals-reformed-house-lords-published |title=Proposals for a reformed House of Lords published |publisher=Deputy Prime Minister |date=17 May 2011}}</ref> However, this Bill was abandoned<ref>Farrington, Conor. "Does It Matter If the House of Lords isn't Reformed? Perspectives from a Symposium at Trinity Hall, Cambridge". ''The Political Quarterly'', vol. 83, no. 3 (July–September 2012), p. 599.</ref> by the Government on 6 August 2012, following opposition from within the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]].

=====House of Lords Reform Act 2014=====
A [[private member's bill]] to introduce some reforms was introduced by [[Dan Byles]] in 2013.<ref>{{cite press release |title=Dan Byles: House of Lords Reform Private Members Bill |url=http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/79493/dan_byles_house_of_lords_reform_private_members_bill.html |work=PoliticsHome |date=4 June 2013 |access-date=23 November 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140827112631/http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/79493/dan_byles_house_of_lords_reform_private_members_bill.html |archive-date=27 August 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The [[House of Lords Reform Act 2014]] received [[Royal Assent#United Kingdom|Royal Assent]] in 2014.<ref name="services.parliament.uk">{{cite web |title=House of Lords Reform Act 2014 |url=http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/houselordsreform.html |work=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament of the UK]] |date=14 May 2014 |access-date=23 November 2014}}</ref> Under the new law:

*All peers can retire or resign from the chamber (prior to this only hereditary peers could disclaim their peerages).
*Peers can be disqualified for non-attendance.
*Peers can be removed for receiving prison sentences of a year or more.<ref name="services.parliament.uk"/>

=====House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015=====
The [[House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015]] authorised the House to expel or suspend members.

=====Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015=====
{{Main|Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015}}
{{See also|Women in the House of Lords}}
This Act made provision to preferentially admit female bishops of the Church of England to the Lords Spiritual over male ones in the 10 years following its commencement (2015 to 2025). This came as a consequence of the Church of England deciding in 2014 to begin to [[Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion#Church of England|ordain women as bishops]].

In 2015, [[Rachel Treweek]], [[Bishop of Gloucester]], became the first woman to sit as a [[Lord Spiritual]] in the House of Lords due to the Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/23-october/news/uk/rachel-treweek-becomes-first-woman-bishop-to-enter-house-of-lords |title=Rachel Treweek becomes first woman bishop to enter House of Lords |work=[[Church Times]] |date=26 October 2015 |access-date=30 October 2015}}</ref> As of 2023, six women bishops sit as Lords Spiritual, five of them having been accelerated due to this Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://members.parliament.uk/members/Lords?SearchText=&PartyId=3&Gender=Female&MembershipStatus=0&PolicyInterestId=&Experience=&ShowAdvanced=true|title=Current Female Bishops in the House of Lords |access-date=4 October 2023}}</ref>

===Size===
The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. The English House of Lords—then comprising 168 members—was joined at Westminster by 16 Scottish peers to represent the peerage of Scotland—a total of 184 nobles—in 1707's first [[Parliament of Great Britain]]. A further 28 Irish members to represent the peerage of Ireland were added in 1801 to the first [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]. From about 220 peers in the eighteenth century,<ref>Cook, C. and Stevenson, J. (1980). ''British Historical Facts 1760–1830''. London: Macmillan., p.50.</ref> the house saw continued expansion. From about 850 peers in 1951/52,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://constitution-unit.com/2017/12/22/the-size-of-the-house-of-lords-what-next/ |title=The size of the House of Lords: what next? |website=Constitution Unit |date=22 December 2017 |access-date=22 July 2021 }}</ref> the numbers rose further with more [[life peers]] after the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the inclusion of all Scottish peers and the first female peers in the [[Peerage Act 1963]]. It reached a record size of 1,330 in October 1999, immediately before the major Lords reform ([[House of Lords Act 1999]]) reduced it to 669, mostly life peers, by March 2000.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbrief/10402.htm |title=House of Lords – Annual Report and Accounts 1999–2000 |publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] |access-date=19 May 2008|quote=This major change had the effect of reducing the total membership of the House from 1,330 in October 1999 – the highest figure ever recorded – to 669 in March 2000}}</ref>
[[File:The size of the United Kingdom House of Lords since 1998.png|thumb|right|upright=1.36|The number of members of the House of Lords since 1998]]
The chamber's membership again expanded in the following decades, increasing to above eight hundred active members in 2014 and prompting further reforms in the [[House of Lords Reform Act 2014|House of Lords Reform Act]] that year.

In April 2011, a cross-party group of former leading politicians, including many senior members of the House of Lords, called on the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]] to stop creating new peers. He had created 117 new peers between entering office in May 2010 and leaving in July 2016, a faster rate of elevation than any PM in British history; at the same time his government had tried (in vain) to reduce the House of Commons by 50, from 650 to 600 MPs.<ref>{{cite news |last=Crick |first=Michael |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/newsnight/michaelcrick/2011/04/stop_making_new_lords_politica.html |title=Stop making new lords, political big-wigs urge Cameron |work=[[BBC News]] |date=19 April 2011 |access-date=4 August 2014}}</ref>

In August 2014, despite there being a seating capacity for only around 230<ref name=BBCspace>{{cite news |title=Peers fight for space in crowded House |first1=James |last1=Lansdale |first2=Emma |last2=Bishop |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28639453 |work=[[BBC News]] |date=5 August 2014 |access-date=23 November 2014}}</ref> to 400<ref name=guard/> on the benches in the Lords chamber, the House had 774 active members (plus 54 who were not entitled to attend or vote, having been suspended or granted leave of absence). This made the House of Lords the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy.<ref name=guard>{{cite news |last=Ghose |first=Katie |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/crowded-house-too-many-lords |title=Crowded house – why we have too many lords |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=1 August 2013 |access-date=4 August 2014}}</ref> In August 2014, former [[Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker of the House of Commons]] [[Betty Boothroyd]] requested that "older peers should retire gracefully" to ease the overcrowding in the House of Lords. She also criticised successive prime ministers for filling the second chamber with "lobby fodder" in an attempt to help their policies become law. She made her remarks days before a new batch of peers were due to be created and several months after the passage of the [[House of Lords Reform Act 2014]], enabling life peers to retire or resign their seats in the House, which had previously only been possible for hereditary peers and bishops.<ref>{{cite news |last=Savage |first=Michael |url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4166892.ece |title=Betty Boothroyd urges older peers to retire |newspaper=[[The Times]] |date=4 August 2014 |access-date=4 August 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06832|title=House of Lords Reform Act 2014|first=Richard|last=Kelly|date=1 July 2016|journal=Parliamentary Research Briefings|publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]}}</ref>

In August 2015, when 45 more peers were created in the [[Dissolution Honours]], the total number of eligible members of the Lords increased to 826. In a report entitled "Does size matter?" the BBC said: "Increasingly, yes. Critics argue the House of Lords is the second largest legislature after the [[National People's Congress|Chinese National People's Congress]] and dwarfs upper houses in other bicameral democracies such as the United States (100 senators), France (348 senators), Australia (76 senators), Canada (105 appointed senators) and India (250 members). The Lords is also larger than the [[Supreme People's Assembly]] of North Korea (687 members). ... Peers grumble that there is not enough room to accommodate all of their colleagues in the Chamber, where there are only about 400 seats, and say they are constantly jostling for space – particularly during high-profile sittings", but added, "On the other hand, defenders of the Lords say that it does a vital job scrutinising legislation, a lot of which has come its way from the Commons in recent years".<ref name="BBC News 28 August 2015">{{cite news |title=House of Lords: Does size matter? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33701011|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|date=28 August 2015 |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=28 August 2015}}</ref>

In late 2016, a Lord Speaker's committee was formed to examine the issue of overcrowding, with fears membership could swell to above 1,000, and in October 2017 the committee presented its findings. In December 2017, the Lords debated and broadly approved its report, which proposed a cap on membership at 600 peers, with a fifteen-year term limit for new peers and a "two-out, one-in" limit on new appointments. By October 2018, the Lord Speaker's committee commended the reduction in peers' numbers, noting that the rate of departures had been greater than expected, with the House of Commons [[Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee]] approving the progress achieved without legislation.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0012|title=Size of the House of Lords: Recent Developments|first=Russell|last=Taylor|date=29 January 2019|journal=Parliamentary Research Briefings|publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]}}</ref>

By April 2019, with the retirement of nearly one hundred peers since the passage of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, the number of active peers had been reduced to a total of 782, of whom 665 were life peers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://members.parliament.uk/members/Lords?membershipstatus=6&showadvanced=true|title=Find Members of the House of Lords – MPs and Lords – UK Parliament|website=members.parliament.uk}}</ref><ref name="parliament.uk">{{cite web|url=https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Lords|title=Lords membership – MPs and Lords |publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]}}</ref> This total, however, remains greater than the membership of 669 peers in March 2000, after implementation of the [[House of Lords Act 1999]] removed the bulk of the hereditary peers from their seats; it is well above the proposed 600-member cap, and is still larger than the House of Commons's 650 members.