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
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump's radio blunder: President appears to admit his name is in Epstein files
The US President, who has been at the centre of controversy surrounding the Epstein files, appeared to admit his name is mentioned in the contentious documents but insisted it was 'faked' by the Democrats Donald Trump appears to have acknowledged his presence in the Epstein Files, as the furore over their handling continues to rage. During a phone-in with "Just the News" on Real America's Voice, the US President alleged that Democrats had concocted information and slipped his name into papers linked to the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein whilst they were in office, reports ABC. Trump's comments came after being quizzed about whether he wanted prosecutors to probe claims of political witch-hunts. This comes after the Wall Street Journal reported on what was described as a "creepy" birthday card allegedly sent from Trump to Epstein. He declared: "Well, I think it's in the case of Epstein, they've already looked at it, and they are looking at it, and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible." Trump went on to voice his doubts: "But you know, that was run by the Biden administration for four years. I can imagine what they put into files, just like they did with the others. I mean, the Steele dossier was a total fake, right? It took two years to figure that out for the people, and all of the things that you mentioned were fake.", reports the Mirror US, reports the Express. He continued: "So I would imagine if they were run by Chris Wray and they were run by Comey, and because it was actually even before that administration, they've been running these files, and so much of the things that we found were fake with me." Trump appears to acknowledge his name was in the Epstein files, but he maintained Democrats fabricated it. Despite his claims that they "put" things in the files, numerous documents referencing Trump have long been publicly available. Bowing to pressure from certain wings within his Republican Party, his team on Friday petitioned a federal court to unveil sealed records concerning Jeffrey Epstein's case, hoping to calm a political firestorm. Nevertheless, even with the potential disclosure of these records, it remains questionable whether this will appease those furious over apparent lack of openness regarding the evidence against the wealthy financier. The administration continues to face criticism for not releasing additional records it possesses. House Republicans are set to vote next week on a resolution crafted to address GOP demands for greater transparency on the Epstein affair. The resolution calls upon the Justice Department to make records public, though it carries no legal force. "The House Republicans are for transparency, and they're looking for a way to say that they agree with the White House," announced House Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday. "We agree with the president. Everything he said about that, all the credible evidence should come out." The Democrats, supported by nine Republicans, have advanced their own bill that would compel the Justice Department to reveal more details about the case.
North Wales Chronicle
4 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Benefits law change for miscarriage of justice victims comes into force
New rules will prevent wrongly convicted people being pushed over the savings limit for means-tested support because of the amount they received in payouts. Until now, compensation for miscarriage of justice sometimes dragged people above the threshold for claiming certain welfare payments. Under a legislative change taking effect from Tuesday, these payouts will now be exempted when assessing eligibility for: income-based jobseeker's allowance, income-related employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, pension credit and universal credit. Social security minister Sir Stephen Timms MP said the move was part of wider Government action aimed at 'rebuilding trust in our systems', which he said 'begins by restoring trust with those the system has failed'. 'We can't return the years lost by miscarriage of justice victims — but we can, and must, ensure they have every opportunity to restart their lives so they can make the most of the years ahead,' he said. He encouraged anyone who has received miscarriage of justice compensation to 'come forward, so we can ensure they receive the help they are entitled to'. The law change comes after campaigners including Andrew Malkinson, who was wrongly convicted of rape, called for greater access to support for those like him whose names have been cleared. Mr Malkinson, who was the victim of one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history, has said while the new rule 'ends a stark injustice', further reforms are needed. Speaking earlier this month, he said he was 'intensely relieved' by the law change but would continue calling on the Government to lift the cap on legal compensation payments. The Ministry of Justice is to raise the amount paid to people wrongly jailed for more than a decade to £1.3 million, but Mr Malkinson has described the proposed increase as 'insulting'. He has also spoken out against rules under which payouts are only awarded to people who can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. 'I remain determined to challenge the completely unfair cap on compensation for the wrongfully convicted – and the ridiculous requirement that a person in my position be required to prove their innocence a second time to get compensated,' he said.
North Wales Chronicle
4 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Records reveal how Palace tried to secure show of support for a new royal yacht
By 1993 it was apparent that, after 39 years, Britannia was reaching the end of its life, but John Major's Conservative government had yet to decide whether to invest in a new yacht at an estimated cost of £50 million. It was widely thought Queen Elizabeth II strongly favoured the commissioning of a new yacht but the royal family could not afford to be seen to be trying to influence political decision-making. However files released by the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that senior courtiers privately approached No 10 to see if the prime minister would make a Commons statement stressing Britannia's 'inestimable value' to the nation. But the plan – which amounted to a thinly veiled show of support for a new yacht – was scotched by the Cabinet Office, which warned that any such comments would be highly 'prejudicial'. One senior official noted caustically that a claim by the Palace that the Queen was 'indifferent' as to the outcome of a review of the yacht's future 'hardly rings true'. The issue of a new yacht came at an extremely difficult time for the government and for the Palace, with support for the royals at a low ebb. There had been an angry public backlash the previous year when ministers announced the taxpayer would pick up the bill – which eventually ran to £36 million – for the restoration of Windsor Castle following a catastrophic fire. In the aftermath of her 'annus horribilis' – which also saw the separation of Charles and Diana – the Queen agreed that she would for the first time pay taxes. With Mr Major due to announce the historic move in a statement to parliament, the Queen's private secretary Sir Robert Fellowes saw an opportunity to secure what would amount to a show of support for a new yacht. He asked the prime minister's principal private secretary Alex Allan if Mr Major would insert a passage referring to the importance of Britannia as well as the Queen's flight and the royal train. He suggested the prime minister should tell MPs that it was not just a question of cost 'but also the style in which we wish our head of state and members of the royal family to represent us' in their public duties. 'It is always difficult to put a price on prestige but I have no doubt that over the years these items have been of inestimable value to this country.' Sir Robin's proposed addition to Mr Major's statement went on: 'I would also like to make clear that there is not, and never has been, any pressure from the Queen to build a replacement for HMY Britannia. 'Should the government decide it is in the national interest for the yacht to be replaced that would be of course another matter.' However, Nicolas Bevan, the official heading the working group set up to consider the future of the yacht, warned that the proposed remarks could be 'prejudicial' to any future decisions. 'For example to say that the royal yacht has been of inestimable value to this country will not be a helpful remark if ministers in due course decide not to replace Britannia,' he said. 'Equally it hardly rings true to suggest that it is a matter of complete indifference to the Queen as to whether Britannia is replaced or not.' Despite the palace's protestations of neutrality, the files suggest courtiers were involved in what amounted to some none too subtle lobbying on behalf of a new yacht. On May 13 1993, senior government officials, led by the cabinet secretary Sir Robin Butler, were invited to a 'splendid lunch' on board Britannia where they were regaled by the former lord mayor of London, Sir Hugh Bidwell, and the Earl of Limerick, a senior banker, on the value of the yacht to UK business. Expressing his thanks afterwards to the master of the Queen's household, Major General Sir Simon Cooper, Sir Robin noted that the setting had 'brought home the issues to those involved in a unique way'. However, when news of the meeting leaked out, government press officers were instructed to impress upon journalists – unattributably – that the Queen and royal family were 'not fighting any kind of rearguard action on the yacht'. Despite misgivings over the costs, the Major government finally announced in January 1997 that they would build a replacement yacht if they were returned to power in the general election later that year. The move was however widely interpreted as a desperate attempt to shore up support among wavering Tory voters, and when Labour was swept to power in a landslide they promptly reversed the decision. When Britannia was finally decommissioned – after returning the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, following the handover to China – the Queen, who rarely displayed any emotion in public, was seen to shed a tear.
