Abolishing the hereditary peers? Then let's dump the titles, as well

Telegraph

03-04-2025

The thing about Britain, at least since 1649, is that it does revolutions nice and quietly, ideally by committee.
And so it is with the removal of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The Lords this week finished the fifth and final committee day of the Hereditary Peers Bill, which abolishes the hereditary principle in the Upper House.
I asked the Duke of Wellington when I met him the other day if he was going to miss it. 'Terribly', he said. 'It has been a great privilege to serve for the last 10 years. I shall miss it very much.' I suggested that at least now he would be able to vote in general elections (peers aren't allowed to). 'A consolation', he admitted.
Personally I think that the Lords will be a less fun, less representative and possibly less civil place without the Duke and his peers.
But once they're gone, these real peers, these dukes, earls and barons, the really big question is, why on earth should any of the remaining members of the Upper House be called lords at all?
The House of Lords gets its name from its members. Formerly if you inherited an earldom, it meant you had to turn up for the State Opening of Parliament and do your bit in the chamber.
The peerage carried the job with it. Now that the link between the upper chamber and the hereditary peerage has been cut, there is no reason whatsoever why MUHs – members of the Upper House – should have a title.
Given that the Government has decided it's against all the flummery of hereditary peerages, they should do away with titles altogether. No more scarlet and ermine for the new members, then. Instead the intake can be introduced as 'The Honourable Stakeholder' if we want to retain civility.
The Earl of Devon, one of the doomed hereditaries, has introduced explosive amendments to the Bill (including incendiary changes to bring gender equality into the inheritance of peerages, which is, I think, a rubbish idea).
But the most interesting one asks for a 'Review of and consultation on appropriateness of name of House'. So, 'The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report based on a public consultation on the implications of the provisions in this Act for the appropriateness of the name of the House of Lords.'
In other words, why have a House of Lords if there are no proper hereditary peers in it? The dignity of being a member of the Second Chamber would have to be enough.
Let's examine what that would actually look like in practice. The wives of the male members wouldn't be called Lady any more; the member himself or herself wouldn't have quite the same pull booking a restaurant and travelling abroad, and Americans wouldn't get quite as excited.
On the bright side, they would still get £361 plus travel expenses for every day they turn up, enough to sort out the utility bills. And they would still have a lovely subsidised restaurant and access to umpteen post offices within Parliament, which is more than the rest of us. I say the Government should fully back the amendment. If they are Roundhead enough to get rid of the hereditaries, let them get rid of the titles and ermine as well.
The thing is, they might find far fewer takers for the Upper Chamber without all of the regal pomp and circumstance.