Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already 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 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative.
The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform.
During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster.
Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire.
However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached.
Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function.
'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.'
He added: 'The Labour Party has won.
'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now.
'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate.
'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory.
'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.'
Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out.
'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?'
He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?'
Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'.
He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated.
'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.'
Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?'
Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto.
She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.'
Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House.
'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.'
Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster.
Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform
The National
31 minutes ago
- The National
How pension savings could be an indy Scotland's ‘wealth fund'
A national pension fund (NPF) would be a large mutual fund owned by Scottish citizens as distinct from a state-owned sovereign wealth fund. It could be established in law based on mandatory 'auto-enrolment' of all new employees starting work for the first time, with all employers and employees paying contributions into the fund. These contributions would provide entitlement to an earnings-related pension but would also build up a large fund that could be invested to support the Scottish economy and the execution of Scottish Government industrial strategy. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' We need to be clear that pension savings give rise to future financial claims upon the resources and productive capacity of the economy. Unless the economy is capable of meeting the needs of everyone in the future, we are storing up a crisis and conflict over access to goods and services. Pension savings need to be used primarily to support the productive capacity of the economy instead of being allocated for speculation in financial markets. The NPF would quickly build into a substantial fund. The contributions made by new employees would not be drawn down to pay pensions for 40 years or more. Once established, existing workers could be offered the option of transferring in their second pensions. For those with defined contribution pensions, there would be a strong incentive as transferring into the NPF would give them rights to an earnings-related pension. Transfers in would increase the size of the NPF even further. The fund would need to be structured so that there was a 'buffer fund' of cash available to meet operating costs and pay out pension benefits. Workers who had transferred in would reach retirement age earlier than the founding auto-enrolled membership, so after a few years the NPF would need a certain amount of available cash to pay pension benefits. Funds in excess of that required to maintain a buffer fund (Fund A) could be allocated for productive investment. Fund B could be designated for investment in government and corporate bonds, a liquid form of financial asset that can be quickly redeemed for cash if necessary to supplement the buffer fund. Fund C could be allocated for direct investment in infrastructure and in the form of partnerships with businesses, giving the NPF direct equity stakes in individual companies. This fund would play a central role in giving the general public a direct stake in business and infrastructure and form the basis of what could be described as 'mutual capitalism'. Fund D would allocate any remaining funds in tradeable shares with an emphasis on the holding of shares in Scottish companies and taking stakes in foreign companies operating in Scotland. Funds C and D would contribute to the process of taking back control and ownership of our national assets and resources. Funds B and D would rely on there being a Scottish Stock Exchange to facilitate their activities. The funds of the NPF could be enhanced further by allocating revenues derived from the management of Scotland's resources. Initially this might be limited to tax revenues, for example from foreign companies operating in the energy sector. However, over time, as Scotland regains ownership and control over our own resources, the higher revenues could also be used to supplement the funds of the NPF in addition to the share of profits the NPF derives from direct investments in infrastructure and equity partnerships. A NPF would constitute a strategically important part of Scotland's future financial architecture and its evolution would have a significant impact on the Scottish asset management industry. A substantial shrinkage of that industry would be likely, but that would be compensated for with the creation of highly skilled, well-paid jobs needed to drive the successful business partnerships which are central to the NPF's purpose as an investor. The administration of an earnings-related pension system, of which the NPF would be a critical part, would also create well-paid jobs in activities such as financial advice, IT systems development and co-ordination with the tax and welfare systems and related government departments. In out next column I will outline how the NPF could be designed as a provider of earnings-related pensions for all Scottish citizens, integrated with a new state earnings-related pension.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Imported dogs could carry disease or behaviour risk, RSPCA warns
RSPCA spokesman David Bowles likened the process to 'Deliveroo for dogs' and called on the Government to tighten regulations on animal rescues. He told the BBC: 'The RSPCA's major concern is these dogs are essentially ticking time bombs – coming over, not being health tested. 'Diseases are now coming in through these dogs. They're affecting not just the dogs that are being imported, they could also affect the dogs already in this country and their owners. 'They've almost set up a Deliveroo for dogs and that is a real problem.' There is no requirement for rescue organisations to be licensed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It comes weeks after a bill that aims to stop animal smuggling and cruelty cleared the Commons with cross-party support. Legislation put forward by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Danny Chambers will reduce the number of animals for non-commercial entry into the UK, ban the import of puppies and kittens under six months old or heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and introduce a halt on the import of dogs and cats who have been 'mutilated', including having their ears docked. The MP for Winchester's Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill was supported by the Government, and will now proceed to the House of Lords on its passage to becoming law. Dr Chambers said: 'As a vet, I've seen the devastating consequences of puppy smuggling. It's unimaginably cruel to separate puppies and kittens from their mothers at a very young age, and then bring them across borders in substandard conditions where they're then sold for maximum profit by unscrupulous traders who prioritise profit over welfare.' He added: 'Careful consideration has been given to setting these limits, balancing the need to disrupt illegal trade with minimising impact on genuine pet owners. To underpin this, only an owner, not an authorised person, will be permitted to sign and declare that the movement of a dog or cat is non-commercial. He criticised the influence of social media on the increased demand for dogs with docked ears, and a party colleague hit out at the platforms' role in publishing animal abuse. He said: 'One reason that there is such an interest in dogs with cropped ears is that a lot of influencers on Instagram and other social media platforms pose with these dogs or show they have these new dogs with cropped ears. Many people aren't aware that this is a mutilation. 'They think it's how the dogs' ears normally look, and it drives a demand for dogs that look like this.'
