THE UK Government will begin the process of removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords, as it introduces legislation to reform the upper chamber.
The bill, set to be introduced on Thursday, will look at abolishing the 92 seats reserved for hereditary peers, and is expected to be followed by the imposition of a retirement age of 80 on members of the Lords.
Currently, once hereditary peers are appointed they are entitled to attend the House of Lords until they die. Like all peers, the hereditary lords can claim a daily £342 attendance allowance.
READ MORE: John Swinney announces nearly £600 million investment in affordable housing
Abolishing hereditary peers from the House of Lords was one of Labour’s manifesto commitments, with Keir Starmer, then leader of the opposition, branding the presence of hereditary peers “undemocratic”.
The manifesto commitment is watered down from Starmer’s previous pledge to abolish the Lords altogether during his 2020 leadership campaign.
However, as we previously reported, it is understood that the hereditary peers would still be allowed to enjoy access to Parliament’s bars and subsidised restaurants, despite no longer holding a seat in the Lords.
Officials have said that reform is “long overdue and essential”, whilst Conservative critics have called the move a “vendetta” and “political vandalism”.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (below), 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.
READ MORE: Priti Patel eliminated in first round of UK Tory leadership contest
“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.
There are no SNP peers because of a long-standing party policy of opposing the House of Lords as “an affront to democracy”.
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn (below) previously said no SNP members or MPs would be entering the House of Lords “on my watch”.
“The House of Lords is a corrupt institution, one which is anarchic, one which rewards people based upon, in some instances, simply who they were born to,” he said.
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.
READ MORE: John Swinney confirms 'key' Creative Scotland fund can continue
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.
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”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel