Government's move to slash House of Lords seats is branded 'political vandalism' by critics

King Charles reads the King's Speech in the House of Lords during the State opening of Parliament in the House of Lords at the Palace of Westminster in London.King Charles reads the King's Speech in the House of Lords during the State opening of Parliament in the House of Lords at the Palace of Westminster in London.
King Charles reads the King's Speech in the House of Lords during the State opening of Parliament in the House of Lords at the Palace of Westminster in London.
The Government has been accused of waging a “vendetta” in its plan to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

Critics called the move “political vandalism” as members of the unelected chamber debated the measure contained in the recent King’s Speech.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Legislation has been proposed to end what the Government has called the “outdated and indefensible” presence of peers who are there by right of birth.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

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

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.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, another Labour manifesto commitment, a mandatory retirement age of 80 in the Lords, was not included in the Government’s legislative plans.

Outlining the proposed reform in his first outing at the despatch box, the new Attorney General Lord Hermer said: “The Government of course recognises the contribution made by hereditary peers, who have worked so hard to scrutinise the governments of the day and support the improvement in quality of legislation.

“Our commitment to reform of the House should not, therefore, be taken as diminishing our respect for the contribution that hereditary peers have made to public life.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“It is, rather, a reflection of our commitment to maintaining the vitality of our democratic institutions.”

But Tory frontbencher Lord Keen of Elie questioned why hereditary peers were being singled out as “exceptional members” given the presence of the Lords Spiritual, who have 26 reserved places for senior Church of England bishops, including the archbishops of Canterbury and York.

Lord Keen said: “The situation of the Lords Spiritual appears more anomalous and perhaps more in need of reform that the situation of the de facto life peers, so many of whom have occupied the highest offices of state, served as ministers of the Crown, and generally contributed mightily to the working of this House.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“If we are to set out a meaningful constitutional reform of the upper House then so be it, but there is no logic in piecemeal change.

“To chip away at one small branch of the constitutional oak that is the House of Lords is little more than political vandalism, apparently fuelled by a totally misconceived perception of what the landowning class of this country is.

“Constitutional reform of any magnitude should be logical and consistent. Piecemeal reform is liable to encourage an overmighty executive to stop short of major reform when it suits their interests. This has happened in the past and we should not allow it to happen again.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Tory former Lords leader Lord Strathclyde, himself a hereditary peer, said: “Why is the Government proposing this? Some say it’s because the House is too big. But a reduction from 800 peers to 710 is hardly going to have them cheering in the streets of Islington.”

He added: “Why on earth is the Government continuing some strange vendetta against a small group of peers who are generally younger, more regular attenders and better participators in the House than the average and yet the Government are unable still to tell us their long term vision for the House.

“We should not accept more bungled piecemeal reform until we have the certainty of proper reform which has been promised for so long.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, said: “We believe that there does need to be a wide debate about the reform of this House and we are confident that when this happens the place of faith in public life will be seen to matter.”

Labour peer Lord Grocott, a former MP who has long campaigned to scrap hereditary peer by-elections, said: “I understand, of course, the upset that many will feel in all parts of the house about 90 colleagues facing the prospect of ending their membership of Parliament.

“I certainly understand it, it happened to me. In my case, it was at 3am in the morning, announced by the returning officer and received in some parts of the hall with great rejoicing.

“But in any parliamentary system, times change and membership of Parliament carries no guarantee of permanence, as the 250-odd members who lost their seats three weeks ago will testify.”

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.