LONDON — Members of the U.K. House of Lords will be required to attend parliament more often and retire at 80 under new proposals put forward by a cross-party committee, published just as Andy Burnham prepares to become prime minister.
Peers would have to attend at least 20 percent of sitting days in a session, while an age limit of 80 would be phased in over five years under plans drawn up after an inquiry into Britain’s upper chamber chaired by Labour peer Ann Taylor, according to three people familiar with discussions. All were granted anonymity to discuss an as-yet-unpublished report.
It is not yet known how the changes will be enforced, but the committee considered the idea of asking members of the Lords to sign a voluntary agreement to abide by the rules on attendance and retirement, in a bid to avoid passing a whole new bill to make the changes needed.
Hereditary peers — granted membership of Britain’s centuries-old House of Lords by birthright — were expelled from parliament earlier this year under legislation brought in by Keir Starmer.
The passage of that relatively limited change took more than 18 months, and Starmer failed to gain agreement on other reforms to reduce the size of the House, which were in his Labour Party’s election-winning 2024 manifesto. Critics of the Lords have long argued that the upper chamber, whose membership is based on appointment by political parties rather than election, is an anachronism.
‘Quick-ish’ win for Burnham
The proposed reforms are the latest incremental step forward in a long-running struggle to reconstitute the U.K.’s unwieldy upper chamber, and they land at an ideal time for Burnham, who is due to take over from Starmer as prime minister next week.
Burnham has repeatedly argued for abolishing and replacing the House of Lords with an elected body.
If peers sign up to the changes voluntarily, then it will save Burnham’s busy new administration the job of passing primary legislation through parliament. If, however, he needs to enact it in law, then several supporters suggested it could represent an early slam-dunk in the quest to downsize the Lords.
One senior Labour official said tightening the rules on age and participation could “deliver a quick-ish win” for Burnham while more ambitious reforms “would be likely to need manifesto cover following hard yards of policy work.”
The same person said there was “ongoing engagement” between Burnham’s transition team and the usual channels — a collective term for the figures in government and opposition who run parliamentary business.
A second ally of Burnham said “the direction of travel is clear” on Lords reform, but that the idea of scrapping the second chamber entirely before an expected general election in 2029 — while initially pushed by some of those around the incoming prime minister — had not been taken forward because it was “just not viable.” They added: “It would gum up everything else; it’ll be the only thing you do.”
The Taylor report could therefore represent the most realistic chance of changing the make-up of the Lords before the next election, deepening the sense that several of Burnham’s most ambitious plans for overhauling the establishment — aside from his beloved devolution agenda — may have to wait.
Burnham’s talk of “abolishing” the party whipping system at Westminster has softened in recent weeks, after he told MPs he wanted the whips to act as an “HR department.”
Burnham has also strongly backed reforming the voting system for general elections, including the introduction of proportional representation.
Allies believe a likely course of action would be for Burnham to set up a commission which could examine electoral reform before promising to change the system in the Labour Party’s next election manifesto.
Almost 100 Labour MPs backed a call for a commission on the subject, which had been due for debate in parliament on Tuesday as part of the government’s Representation of the People Bill. That bill has now been delayed to September. One MP backing the proposal said they believed Burnham may launch a commission anyway, without the need to debate an amendment in parliament.
A spokesperson for Burnham declined to comment.
Dan Bloom contributed reporting.
