UK Government brings in Bill to remove ‘outdated’ hereditary peers from Lords
The Government will begin the process of removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords on Thursday, as it introduces legislation to reform the upper chamber.
Abolishing the 92 seats reserved for hereditary peers was one of Labour’s manifesto commitments, and is expected to be followed by the imposition of a retirement age of 80 on members of the Lords.
Officials have previously described the continued presence of hereditary peers in the Lords as “outdated and indefensible”, with reform “long overdue and essential”.
But Conservative critics have called the move a “vendetta” and “political vandalism”.
‘Landmark’
Nick Thomas-Symonds, minister for the constitution, said the legislation was a “landmark reform to our constitution”.
He said: “The hereditary principle in law-making has lasted for too long and is out of step with modern Britain.
“The second chamber plays a vital role in our constitution and people should not be voting on our laws in Parliament by an accident of birth.
“This Bill shows this Government’s commitment to delivering on our manifesto and is an important part of putting politics in the service of working people.”
The last Labour government removed most hereditary peers from the Lords in 1999, but allowed 92 to remain in what was initially intended to be a short-term compromise to get the legislation through.
About half of those still in the chamber are Conservatives, with the rest mainly independent Crossbenchers and a small number of Labour and Liberal Democrat peers.
Current hereditary peers in the House of Lords include Lord Attlee, grandson of the Labour prime minister Clement Attlee; the Duke of Wellington, whose great-great-great-grandfather defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815; and Viscount Stansgate, whose father Tony Benn renounced his peerage to sit in the Commons, where he became a prominent figure on the left of the Labour Party.
The total also includes two peers, the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain, who are permitted to remain members of the Lords by virtue of those offices.
Exemptions
The Bill introduced on Thursday is expected to maintain the exemptions for the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain because of the constitutional duties they perform on state occasions.
Baroness Angela Smith, the Leader of the House of Lords, said: “While recognising the valuable contributions many hereditary peers have made to Parliament, it is right that this reform is being brought forward now, completing work we began 25 years ago.
“Removing the hereditary principle from the Lords will deliver on a specific manifesto commitment. It will also help deliver on our commitment to reduce the size of the second chamber, as we bring forward further reforms.”
Labour remains formally committed to abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber, but the party’s 2024 manifesto promised only to “consult on proposals”.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
There are some excellent people in the Lords, the problem is not hereditary alone, sticking people like Goldsmith and Hannan and Bailey or Mathew Elliot in there are a massive issue. You need to be able to remove them.
There’s a good case for appointing experienced lawmakers to the Second Chamber, to review and scrutinise Commons law drafting.. But do they need to be for Life ?
More like the electoral ‘party lists’ , in the Senedd d’Hondt system , which only last a single term, perhaps ?
It took 100 years for the backward Untied Kingdom to change to decimal currency after it was first mooted.
Given that rate of progress I fully expect the appointed second chamber to be an old folks’ home for superannuated party warhorses and patronage appointments until at least the 25th century.
It’s good that they’re starting to actually think like this, but the UK is still far behind the times. The funny costumes and “traditions” need to be put in the bin.
Removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords (HoL) is welcomed and long overdue. However, the current system by which a Prime Minister (or former Prime Minister) can effectively select some of his/her cronies as Members of the HoL is just as objectionable as hereditary peers sitting there and should also be rescinded. Moreover, 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops are Members of the HoL but, inequitably, there are no Members from the Church in Wales or Scotland. The HoL should be replaced by a democratically elected Senate as is the case in the USA.