Hereditary peer by-elections on ice with move to oust aristocrats from Lords

Aristocrat by-elections to the House of Lords have been delayed in the face of plans to kick out hereditary peers sparking accusations of illegality.

Labour leader of the upper chamber Baroness Smith of Basildon said the move to extend the time period in which contests must be held from three to 18 months was a “common-sense approach” in the light of proposed legislation.

Given the steps to oust hereditary peers, holding by-elections to fill vacancies in the meantime would be “deeply undesirable”, she argued and pointed to cross-party agreement of the front benches, known as “the usual channels”.

‘Eviscerate’

But some critics on the Tory side raised concerns arguing it would “eviscerate” a legal obligation and cast doubt on Labour’s commitment to the rule of law.

It also led to fresh claims that as hereditary peers were elected they had “the superior right to be here”.

Legislation has been proposed to end what the Government has called the “outdated and indefensible” presence of peers who are there by right of birth.

The presence of 92 hereditary members and the by-elections to replace them has been the subject of ongoing criticism given the exclusive, male-dominated list of eligible candidates and the limited number of people able to vote in the contests.

Lords reforms under Tony Blair reduced the number of hereditary peers to 90, plus the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.

That was intended only as a short-term compromise, but the situation has persisted for 25 years.

Under the plans, the hereditary roles of Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain would again be exempt because of the constitutional duties they perform on state occasions.

The legislation, which was promised in Labour’s election manifesto, is billed as the first step in a process of reform.

Temporary measure

Outlining the move to extend the period within which by-elections need to take place, Lady Smith said: “This is a temporary measure that recognises the House will in the near future be debating in more detail the wider issue around hereditary membership of the House.

“The usual channels are unanimous that ongoing by-elections during parliamentary consideration of the Bill would be deeply undesirable given this context.”

She pointed out both the Conservative and crossbench groups, which currently had two vacancies to fill, “do not wish those by-elections to occur”.

Tory deputy leader in the Lords Earl Howe, himself a hereditary peer, said: “I am happy to give my approval to the motion as the right and sensible course to take.

“The spirit of the discussion in the usual channels has been open and constructive with goodwill expressed on all sides.”

But Conservative Lord Moylan said: “I am slightly concerned about this. I am not a usual channel.

“The conversations that have taken place with such amity and warmth seem not to have reached me.”

He added: “We have a statutory obligation to hold these by-elections and to proceed by using standing orders to eviscerate effectively that statutory obligation, which is what we are doing, does seem to me to cast a very early question on this commitment to rule of law that we have heard about.”

‘Laughing stock’

But Labour peer Lord Grocott, who has long campaigned to scrap hereditary peer by-elections, said continuing to hold them amid moves to end their membership “would make us even more of a laughing stock than these by-elections do in any case”.

He added: “This almost certainly means the end of hereditary peers by-elections. Wonderful as far as I am concerned.

“The time has come in a puff of smoke on a damp Thursday morning that these wretched by-elections will come to a conclusion.”

While agreeing it meant an end to the by-elections, Tory peer Lord Hamilton of Epsom said: “That doesn’t stop the fact that this move is actually illegal … which is rather strange from a party that’s led by a leader who was the director of public prosecutions, dedicated to obeying the rule of law.”

He added: “The problem is none of us in this House are legitimate. We are all appointed by body or another or one individual or another.

“The only people who are elected by anybody are the hereditaries. So in many ways they have the superior right to be here.”

Tory former Lords leader and hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde said: “I think these by-elections will be much missed.”

He added: “It will be for history to decide in the future on the contribution of these by-elections.

“But I think history will note that perhaps it was better to have peers voting for one of their own rather than just being ticked in the box by the Prime Minister.”

Responding, Lady Smith said: “In no way does this proposal … breach legislation.”

She added: “What we are seeking today is to have a common-sense approach within the law to deal with the by-elections.”