Tying eviction of hereditary peers to wider Lords revamp ‘excuse for no change’

Bundling the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords with a wholesale revamp of the unelected chamber has been branded “an excuse for no change” at Westminster.

The warning was issued by Labour former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton in the face of Tory criticism of the plan to boot out bloodline members, which has sparked accusations of broken promises, class war, “guillotines” and “drive-by assassination”.

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth.

There are currently 88 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation.

Promise

The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour’s election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform.

There have been concerns about the size of the House and calls to reduce its membership, which stands at around 800, compared with MPs, who are capped at 650 members.

A commitment to introduce a participation requirement and mandatory retirement age of 80 were not included in the Government’s current legislative plans.

Under current rules, peers do not need to take part in proceedings to claim the daily attendance allowance of £361 and up to £100 for overnight stays plus travel expenses.

It has fuelled claims some use it as a glorified members’ club at taxpayers’ expense.

Speaking during an extended second reading debate on the Bill, Lord Falconer told peers: “It is said that the removal of the hereditaries should await all the other changes which should occur to this House. History tells us that that is an excuse for no change.

“The principle is established the hereditaries should go, it is right. It was the only immediate change promised in the manifesto, we should act.”

‘Stagnation’

Earlier, opening the debate, leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said: “There are those who argue that no reform should take place until everything is agreed. But with no agreement on what everything should entail, nothing gets done, and this has created a track record of stagnation and stalled attempts at reform.

“In this case taking a staged approach represents the best and most practical way forward and is entirely in line with the manifesto commitments.

“To continue to assert that wider reforms must be implemented alongside this Bill is a wilful misinterpretation of the manifesto.”

She pointed out that even after the removal of the hereditary peers, the Conservatives would remain the largest party in the House.

‘Fiercely contested’

But her Tory shadow Lord True said: “This will be a fiercely contested Bill. Not for its declared objective that no more hereditary peers will come here… but frankly for the Bill’s sheer inadequacy. The Bill is defective not just for what is in it but for what it fails to address.”

He argued one of the justifications for the move was “more Keir Hardie than Keir Starmer” and was “an outdated class warrior one”.

Lord True added: “What I do reject is the idea that if one wants to reduce numbers the masterplan is to find some of the best and hardest working among us and kick them out while clinging to the laggards and the no-shows. No rational institution would do that.”

Taking aim at the Tory opposition, Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords Lord Newby said: “The doctrine of ‘unright time’ is typically a cover for basic opposition to the proposal under debate and this is what’s happening with this Bill.”

But Tory former Lords leader and hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde said: “This is a thoroughly nasty little Bill, rushed through the House of Commons and brought to us with little thought about the future, and breaking a fundamental and solemn agreement made by the then Labour Lord Chancellor in 1998… that the remaining hereditary peers would only leave when the Labour government had introduced its plans for a fully reformed House.”

He added: “Isn’t the reality that this is a nakedly partisan Bill whose key aim is to reduce the number of the Government’s opponents in the Lords and throw some red meat to extreme Labour?”