A life peer is an individual who has been appointed to be a member of the House of Lords for their lifetime. The title and the right to sit in the House are not hereditary and are extinguished upon the peer’s death.

Life peers make up the vast majority of the membership of the upper chamber (approximately 700 out of 800). Historically, they comprised the secular lords temporal together with hereditary peers – the non-religious counterpart to the lords spiritual. (The House of Lords Act 2026 removed the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the chamber.)

Life peerages are formally granted by the monarch (as the fount of honour) on the advice of the prime minister. Members of the House of Lords are not required to retire at a certain age, but under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, they can choose to retire voluntarily and permanently from the House.

The routes to a life peerage

Party-political peers

The leaders of the main political parties can nominate individuals for a peerage. These are typically former senior politicians, party grandees or sympathetic experts who are expected to take an active interest in the work of parliament. They are sometimes referred to as “working peers”.

These nominations are submitted to the prime minister, who then advises the monarch, who makes the appointment as the fount of honour. It is also a convention that a prime minister may issue a “resignation” or “dissolution” honours list, which often includes peerages for former political colleagues, staff and close allies.

Non-party-political peers

These peerages are awarded on a non-political basis to individuals who have a record of outstanding achievement and public service. Nominations can be made by members of the public to the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac). Holac vets these nominations and recommends individuals to the prime minister.

These peers tend to be independent and sit on the crossbenches, with no party political allegiance. They have sometimes been referred to as the “people’s peers”.

Life peerages are also granted as an honour to mark the end of a distinguished career. This often includes retiring senior public figures such as former cabinet secretaries, senior archbishops, chiefs of the defence staff, or former speaker of the House of Commons.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission: history and role

Holac was established by the prime minister in May 2000 as a non-statutory advisory body.

The Labour Party’s manifesto for the 1997 general election featured a commitment to review the “system of appointment of life peers to the House of Lords”. In May 2000, Tony Blair said the new commission would ensure the upper chamber was “more representative of our diverse society”.

The commission is made up of seven members, including the chair. Three members were appointed to represent the main political parties. The other four members and the chair are non-political and independent of government.

Holac has two key functions.

Vetting party-political nominees

It vets nominations for life peerages, including those put forward by the political parties, to ensure the propriety of the candidates.

Crucially, Holac’s vetting role is only advisory. The commission plays no part in assessing the more subjective suitability of those nominated by the political parties, which is a matter for the parties themselves.

Moreover, it does not have the legal power to block an appointment if it has any concerns about the propriety of an individual. Its role is simply to advise the prime minister, having carried out a range of checks.

Appointing crossbenchers

Holac is also responsible for recommending non-party-political crossbench peers.

Anyone wishing to be considered as a non-party political life peer can submit a nomination form. The commission encourages “nominations from talented individuals from all backgrounds and across the whole of the United Kingdom.”

Those seeking to apply must answer questions such as: “What has motivated you to apply to become a crossbench peer in the House of Lords?”

The nomination form also asks: “How would you use your specific skills and experience to make an effective and valuable contribution to the work of the House of Lords, not just in your area of expertise but more widely?”

Applicants are granted 350 and 500 words to answer these questions respectively. Applicants are also asked to provide a CV to support their nomination form.

Life Peerages Act 1958 and legislative development

The Life Peerages Act, passed by Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government in 1958, allowed for the creation of non-hereditary members. It gave prime ministers the power to appoint individuals of apparent distinction from fields such as science, business, the arts, and public service for “life”.

The Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 had introduced the concept of the life peer; these were the lords of appeal in ordinary (known as law lords) appointed by the sovereign. The 1958 act enabled the prime minister to make their own appointments to the Lords, including for explicitly political purposes.

Significantly, the 1958 act allowed women to sit and vote in the House of Lords for the first time. While women had been able to vote in general elections and stand as a candidate since 1918, the upper chamber had remained an exclusively male preserve.

The one-clause bill stated: “Her Majesty shall have power by letters patent to confer on any person a peerage for life”

Subsection 3 of section 1 of the bill provided that a “life peerage may be conferred under this section on a woman”.

The first 14 life peers were announced on 24 July 1958. And in October 1958, Barbara Wootton, Stella Isaacs, Katharine Elliot and Irene Curzon – the first four women to be nominated to the upper chamber – were sworn in.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who served as prime minister between 1963 and 1964, was the first former prime minister to receive a life peerage. (Douglas-Home had previously disclaimed a hereditary earldom to take up the post of prime minister.)

The practice of appointing hereditary peers virtually ceased in 1964 upon the start of Harold Wilson’s government. Macmillan, who accepted an earldom 20 years later after his resignation as prime minister, was the last non-royal recipient of a hereditary peerage.

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 abolished the system of law lords, ending the historic judicial function of parliament.

The House of Lords Reform Act, which received royal assent in 2014, allowed members to resign from the House, in a way that had previously not been possible. It also allowed for the exclusion of any peer convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or more. This was followed up by the 2015 House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act that authorised the House to expel or suspend members.

How many life peerages have prime ministers created?

The House of Lords Library maintains a running total of life peerages created since the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958, with the figures broken down by the prime minister in office at the time of each appointment.

• Harold Macmillan: 47
• Sir Alec Douglas-Home: 16
• Harold Wilson (first term): 135
• Edward Heath: 45
• Harold Wilson (second term): 80
• James Callaghan: 58
• Margaret Thatcher: 201
• John Major: 160
• Tony Blair: 374
• Gordon Brown: 34
• David Cameron: 245
• Theresa May: 43
• Boris Johnson: 87
• Liz Truss: 29
• Rishi Sunak: 51

The future of life peerages

The system of life peerages is intrinsically linked to the wider debate on House of Lords reform.

In 2022, Labour committed to abolish the current House of Lords entirely and replace it with a new, smaller, and fully elected second chamber. Such a fundamental reform would, by definition, bring the system of appointing new life peers to an end.

Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto argued that House of Lords reform was “long overdue and essential”.

The party vowed to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80 at the end of the relevant parliament, stronger participation requirements, and clearer mechanisms for removing “disgraced members”.

Labour pledged to reform the appointments process to “ensure the quality of new appointments and will seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber.”

Beyond this, Labour reiterated its longer-term commitment “to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations.”

Since entering government, however, it has been suggested that Labour has scaled back the scope and pace of its reform plans.

Life peers: controversies

The appointment of life peers, particularly through political nominations, is a source of longstanding controversy.

The prime minister of the day is able to use the honours system for leverage. In the early 1960s, several of the victims of Harold Macmillan’s “night of the long knives” were mollified with peerages. Macmillan offered the outgoing chancellor, Selwyn Lloyd, a peerage. (Lloyd rejected the offer.)

Viscount Kilmuir, who was dismissed as lord chancellor, was elevated in the peerage to an earldom. The education minister, Sir David Eccles, was raised to the peerage as Baron Eccles. Lord Mills, who left his post as a minister without portfolio, was soon created a viscount.

Harold Wilson’s reputation was tarnished by his controversial resignation honours list, nicknamed the “Lavender list”, which rewarded a number of businessmen and associates. Lord Kagan, elevated as part of the honours list, was convicted of fraud in 1980; another, Sir Eric Miller committed suicide while under investigation for fraud in 1977.

The original list of nominees was drawn up by Wilson’s political secretary Marcia Williams on lavender notepaper – hence its nickname. Roy Jenkins, the former home secretary, later noted that Wilson’s retirement “was disfigured by his, at best, eccentric resignation honours list, which gave peerages or knighthoods to some adventurous business gentlemen, several of whom were close neither to him nor to the Labour Party.”

More recently, it was alleged that Tony Blair successfully convinced a number of ageing Labour MPs to retire in 2001 to make way for New Labour rising stars by promising them peerages. David Clark, who served as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from 1997 to 1998, initially denied speculation that he would stand down at the 2001 election as the MP for South Shields, a safe Labour seat.

Clark, having won re-selection as the prospective Labour candidate for South Shields, then reportedly stood down once the election was called. David Miliband, the director of the No 10 policy unit, was then imposed on the South Shields by Labour’s national executive committee (NEC). Following the election, Clark was awarded a life peerage and appointed chairman of the Forestry Commission.

James Purnell, a No 10 special adviser, succeeded veteran parliamentarian Tom Pendry as the MP for Stalybridge and Hyde. Pendry was subsequently elevated to the Lords.

Blair, however, rejected allegations that retiring MPs had been offered a peerage to make way for Downing Street favourites. He told the BBC: “The question of who goes to the House of Lords as Labour nominations… those are decisions for a different time.”

Blair added: “Nobody gets offered anything.”

During his tenure as prime minister, Blair was accused of using his powers of patronage to pack the House of Lords with his supporters – sometimes referred to as “Tony’s cronies”. Blair created the most life peers of any prime minister during his time in office (374).

In early 2006, the police were called upon to investigate allegations that fundraisers for both the Labour and Conservative parties had offered supporters a life peerage in return for their financial support. Both parties denied the claims but the ensuing row led to calls for greater scrutiny of the process of appointing people to the House of Lords.

Blair and various other figures from all the main parties were interviewed by the police over the affair. Lord Levy, Labour’s fundraiser, was arrested and released on bail.

In July 2006, following Levy’s arrest, Blair pointed to the fact that there are places reserved in the Lords “for party supporters, Conservative supporters, Labour supporters, Liberal Democrat supporters.”

He added: “In my view, it is absurd to say that if someone supports a political party financially – helps it pay its bills, run its election campaign – that they should be debarred from… those places reserved specifically for party supporters.”

The story had a significant political impact and, according to some commentators, hastened Blair’s downfall as prime minister. At the time, the Labour Party returned a number of loans, leaving it with a financial headache.

The crown prosecution service (CPS) announced on 20 July 2007 it would not bring any charges against any of the individuals involved. The service said it had not rejected the idea the loans may have been made in exchange for honours, but it could not find any direct evidence sufficient for a successful prosecution. The announcement brought to an end a 16-month inquiry that cost £800,000.

The CPS stated: “For a case to proceed, the prosecution must have a realistic prospect of being able to prove that the two people agreed that the gift, etc, was in exchange for an honour.”

It concluded that there was “no direct evidence of any such agreement between any two people subject of this investigation”.

The scandal nonetheless prompted an investigation into the honours system by the House of Commons public administration select committee. The committee’s report, titled Propriety and Peerages, noted that the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 was “severely tested” by the police investigation. However, it concluded that “its scope remains appropriate, even if the behaviour it criminalises is inherently difficult to prove to the necessary standard”.

It recommended that Holac should be put on a statutory footing – a proposal that was not taken up by the government. In addition, it recommended greater clarity between the receipt of an honour and the ability to sit in the House of Lords as a legislator.

In 2020, the Holac objected to prime minister Boris Johnson’s nomination of Peter Cruddas for a peerage. Cruddas had donated over £1,000,000 to the Conservative Party. Despite this, Johnson chose to proceed with the appointment. He became the first prime minister ever to overrule the commission’s advice.

In his letter to the chair of the Holac, Lord Bew, Johnson said Cruddas had made “outstanding contributions” to the business and charitable sectors.

In July 2020, Johnson nominated Evgeny Lebedev, the owner of the Evening Standard, to the Lords as a life peer. Lebedev, the Russian-born son of a KGB agent, was created Baron Lebedev, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and of Siberia in the Russian Federation.

The appointment sparked significant controversy, leading the House of Commons to approve a motion requiring the government to release documents concerning Johnson’s role in the appointment. The controversy centred on whether Johnson pressured security services to withdraw or reconsider a previous assessment of Lebedev before his appointment.

The Cabinet Office has largely withheld detailed security advice. Ministers cited the need to “protect national security” and maintain the integrity of the honours system.

The resignation honours lists of both Liz Truss (2022) and Johnson (2023) sparked significant controversy. Johnson’s list was especially controversial as Holac advised against several of his nominations for peerages. In total, Holac advised against eight of Johnson’s nominations.

In June 2023, Holac issued a statement declaring that it “considered the nominations proposed by the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP in line with its usual processes… Eight nominees were not supported by the commission. The commission is advisory to the prime minister and is not involved in the appointment processes after providing advice.”

In the end, the honours list, published during Rishi Sunak’s tenure as prime minister, landed without the names of some of Johnson’s leading allies, including Conservative MPs Nadine Dorries and Nigel Adams.

Charlotte Owen, a 30-year-old former adviser to Boris Johnson, was among those who received a life peerage in his resignation honours list. Critics of the selection claimed that she was too junior to take on such a role and that Johnson was handing out peerages to his “cronies”.

In November 2023, Sunak created former Conservative leader David Cameron as a life peer and appointed him as foreign secretary. Lord Cameron’s appointment caused considerable controversy at the time. MPs objected to the fact that a head of one of the so-called “great offices of state” was subject to routine scrutiny by peers, as opposed to elected MPs. Upon Cameron’s appointment, the speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, said he would work to ensure that the new foreign secretary was “accountable”.

Speaking in defence of Cameron’s appointment, the prime minister’s official spokesperson said there was a “longstanding precedent” for such elevations. “We had Nicky Morgan, who was secretary of state for culture, media and sport in the Lords in 2019”, they said. “Lord Mandelson served as business secretary under the last Labour government [and] Lord Carrington was foreign secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s government.”

Before Cameron, the most recent cabinet minister to be based in the House of Lords was Lord Frost. In his capacity as chief Brexit negotiator, however, Frost did not run a government department.

In August 2025, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, called on the prime minister to allow him to appoint peers to the House of Lords.

He stated: “My party received over 4.1 million votes at the general election in July 2024. We have since won a large number of seats in local government, led the national opinion polls for many months and won the only by-election of this parliament… the time has come to address the democratic disparity that exists in the upper house.”

Additional resources

• House of Lords Appointments Commission: https://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/