House of Lords

===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>