What are the rules and precedents governing expulsion from the House of Lords and the removal of the right to use a peerage title?
Executive summary
The House of Lords can remove a person’s right to sit and vote in the chamber through statutory and internal procedures, but stripping the actual legal right to hold a peerage is a far rarer, more intrusive act that requires primary legislation and has only been used in exceptional historical circumstances (notably the Titles Deprivation Act 1917) [1] [2] [3]. The working distinction is therefore clear in law and practice: expulsion or suspension from the House is governed by recent Acts and standing orders, while removal of the title itself requires an Act of Parliament and carries heavy constitutional and political consequences [4] [5] [6].
1. Statutory framework for expulsion and suspension from the Lords
Parliament has given the House of Lords explicit powers to suspend or expel members: the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 empowers the House to pass a resolution to expel or suspend a member for misconduct, and that power supplements earlier measures in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 which made membership cease automatically for members jailed for more than one year or for extended non-attendance [1] [4] [6]. Standing Order 11 of the Lords requires that any motion to expel must follow a recommendation from the Lords Conduct Committee after a finding of breach of the Code of Conduct, meaning expulsions are normally triggered by an investigative and adjudicative process within the House rather than a simple party whip or press furore [7] [5].
2. How the process works in practice and precedents
In practice the Conduct Committee investigates alleged breaches, reports and then the House votes on the committee’s recommendation before suspension or expulsion can occur; the first peer recommended for expulsion under the new powers was Lord Ahmed in 2020, who resigned before further formalities, and earlier scandals prompted resignations rather than statutory expulsions [4]. The 2014 and 2015 reforms were driven by high-profile misconduct cases and by parliamentary self-interest in restoring standards, but they apply only to misconduct that occurred or became known after the 2015 Act came into force and they do not affect the peerage itself — the sanction is loss of membership and privileges, not eradication of a title [4] [6].
3. Why removing a peerage title is different and legally difficult
Once a peerage is conferred it is legally entrenched: removing the right to use a title or taking someone “off the roll of the peerage” cannot be achieved by the Lords alone and has historically required primary legislation backed by Crown action — the clearest precedent is the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, which removed a set of peerages from those who aided Britain’s enemies in the First World War [3] [6]. Government and parliamentary briefing notes and constitutional experts therefore repeat the same rule: an Act of Parliament is required to strip a peerage once created, and life peerages in particular are created for life and are not transmissible, but they too would need primary legislation to be abolished or deprived [5] [2].
4. Limited alternatives: disclaimers, retirement and practical effects
There are narrow alternatives short of an Act: an heir can disclaim an hereditary peerage under the Peerage Act 1963 within a limited window after succession, and peers can resign, retire, or be suspended so that they no longer sit or use parliamentary facilities, but these routes do not equate to statutory removal of the title itself and they do not apply to most life peerages [5] [8]. In short, political pressure can force a peer out of the chamber or prompt voluntary relinquishment of active roles, but it cannot quietly erase the legal status conferred by Letters Patent without explicit legislative intervention [3] [2].
5. Politics, precedent and the costs of reform
Calls to strip high-profile figures of titles have a clear political logic — they offer visible accountability — but they also raise serious constitutional and precedent concerns: requiring primary legislation gives Parliament full democratic control but also exposes the process to politicisation and future use for politically motivated purges, an argument emphasised by legal commentators and sources such as the House of Commons and Lords libraries [5] [9] [3]. Any reform to allow routine removal of titles would therefore need careful drafting — either to narrow the grounds for deprivation or to set rigorous procedural safeguards — because the same mechanisms could later be used to remove honours from political opponents or successive generations [3] [2].