House of Lords

====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>