A bid to overturn the ”absurd and indefensible” system of electing hereditary peers that swell numbers in the House of Lords will continue its passage through Parliament.
But the Labour Lord backing the bill has warned aristocratic peers not to try and block his bill when it comes before peers again – as they have done twice before.
Labour’s Lord Grocott’s bill to scrap by-elections for hereditary members of the House of Lords, a bizarre custom where seats are doled out to aristocrats through a poll of only a handful of voters, was approved at second reading.
The Bill would phase out hereditary peers by scrapping these by-elections, and instead not replacing the current office-holders when they die, resign or are expelled.
But the move is opposed by many Tory Lords – including a number of hereditary peers, who may try block it when it returns at committee stage.
But Lord Grocott vowed to change the way the bill was scrutinised if Tory Lords tried to sink it again.
He said:” The last two bills were filibustered, were destroyed, in committee in a way which was embarrassing.”
(Image: Press Association)
Last March, two Tory aristocrats laid more than 50 amendments between them in a attempt to run the Bill out of time.
Campaigners accused those peers Lord Trefgarne and the Earl of Caithness – both hereditary peers – of an “outrageous” and “adolescent” bid to stop hereditary peers being axed.
Yesterday they did not attempt to block the bill – but instead suggested it wasn’t radical enough.
The 1999 House of Lords Act removed all but 92 hereditary peers, in what was intended to be a temporary compromise. Subsequently, vacancies that result from death or – since minor changes in 2014 and 2015, retirement, resignation or exclusion – are filled through a so-called by-election.
These aristocrats are chosen by party groups of current hereditary peers, from an official list of aristocrats, who are overwhelmingly men.
Lord Grocott said: “Anyone opposing my Bill needs to explain to the House why he or she thinks that is acceptable in the 21st century.
“There are 90 places in the House of Lords exclusively reserved, by law, for people who have inherited titles, and for which any vacancies are effectively for men only.”
Former Labour Home Secretary Lord Blunkett supported the bill because it would end the influence of those who shape our laws because “grandparents or great-grandparents were responsible for supporting a particular king or queen at a moment in time, or were granted land and privileges”
Willie Sullivan, Senior Director (Campaigns) at the Electoral Reform Society, said:n “It’s absurd that in 2020, hereditary aristocrats are still guaranteed representation in our parliament, while the rest of the country are locked out.
“A couple of hundred men of the landed gentry get to pick a sizeable chunk of the Lords, to vote on our laws for life – and not a single ordinary voter has a say.
“The system is beyond rotten, and is one of many reasons the Lords looks like a private members’ club rather than a serious scrutiny chamber.”
This is the third time the Bill has returned to the chamber – after being ‘talked out’ of time or filibustered by hereditary peers on other occasions.
(Image: PA)
On Friday, a number of hereditary peers rose to speak against the bill, that it wasn’t radical enough for their appetites to see the House of Lords reformed.
Lord Trefgarne, who has been in the Lords for 57 years thanks to his dad George being handed a peerage in 1947, said he would happily leave the Lords – but only once more radical action was taken.
He told peers: “I remain opposed to piecemeal reform and therefore to this Bill. I hope that comprehensive reform can come to the House in due course, which I shall not oppose. In the meantime, let us leave the hereditary Peers as they are.
The Earl of Caithness said: “The bill makes this House a totally appointed Chamber—appointed at the whim of the Prime Minister.
“The House of Commons has never voted for that—quite the reverse. It has voted for an elected Chamber. It is only this House that has voted to remain a totally appointed Chamber.
“I want an elected second Chamber, and surely that is what we should have.”
