Outgoing hereditery peers criticise ‘nasty plan’ to remove them from the Lords | Politics News

Peers have criticised a “thoroughly nasty” plan to remove hereditary members from the House of Lords – accusing Labour of launching a “class war” and sending them to the “guillotine”.

The bill to kick out people who inherited their seats from their families had its second reading in the upper chamber on Wednesday.

Politics Live: Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch clash over immigration at PMQs

It drew an angry reaction from hereditary and non-hereditary peers alike, with Tory shadow Lords leader Nicholas True invoking Alan Sugar’s famous catchphrase from The Apprentice TV show.

“The blunt message that this bill sends out to 88 of our number is as Lord Sugar put it is ‘You’re fired’.”, Lord True said.

“I wonder by the way how often Lord Sugar comes here?”

The business mogul and media personality has faced criticism over his long-running failure to take part in proceedings, having been made a life peer in 2009.

Lord True said he rejects the idea that if the government wants to reduce the size of the House of Lords “the masterplan is to find some of the best and hardest working among us and kick them out while clinging to the laggards and the no-shows”.

He argued that one of the justifications for the plan was “an outdated class warrior one, like driving 15-year-old students out of private schools” – in reference to Labour’s VAT policy on independent fees.

Conservative former minister Lord Blencathra echoed that sentiment, telling the upper chamber he was reminded of the late Labour former minister Tony Banks who opposed fox hunting.

Read More:
As Labour attempt to reform the Lords, the end of the peer show is still a long way off
House of Lords set-up ‘indefensible’, says Gordon Brown

He added: “I recall a few occasions during his passionate speeches when it seemed that what was driving him was not the love of foxes but his dislike of the people he thought did it – Tory toffs in red coats on horseback.”

He said that “we have this bill and the class war is restarted again”.

Conservative peer and author of the House Of Cards trilogy, Lord Michael Dobbs, compared the removal of hereditary peers from the Lords to being “guillotined in front of the mob” in an “act of political spite”.

‘Nasty little plan’

Hereditary peers went even further in their criticism.

Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, known in parliament as Lord Strathclyde, said: “This is a thoroughly nasty little bill, rushed through the House of Commons and brought to us with little thought about the future.

“Isn’t the reality that this is a nakedly partisan bill whose key aim is to reduce the number of the government’s opponents in the Lords and throw some red meat to extreme Labour?”

Tory hereditary peer Lord Ian Strathcarron questioned whether the move to oust bloodline members was “to cull the House of private sector representation”.

And independent crossbench hereditary peer Lord Cromwell stressed the need to reform the system of appointments to the upper chamber and urged the introduction of a participation requirement.

He said: “The unrestrained ability of party leaders to dangle peerages as rewards and then to appoint their mates, their loyalists and their donors, is both a numerical disaster and a reputational cancer at the heart of this place.”

What is Labour proposing?

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has 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 88 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections to bring in new ones pending the legislation.

The bill delivers on a promise in Labour’s election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform.

Defending the government’s plan, Labour cabinet minister Baroness Smith said the removal of hereditary peers is “not a slight” on their contribution, but about completing the work of the 1999 House of Lords Act “which defined the principle that seats should no longer be reserved purely because of the family a peer was born into”.

There have long been concerns about the size of the Lords and calls to reduce its membership, which stands at around 800, compared with MPs, who are capped at 650 members.

While there was strong criticism of the government’s plan today, there are others who want reform to go even further.

A commitment to introduce a participation requirement and mandatory retirement age of 80 were not included in the current legislative plans.

At present, peers do not need to take part in proceedings to claim the daily attendance allowance of £361 and up to £100 for overnight stays plus travel expenses.

It has fuelled claims some use it as a glorified members’ club at taxpayers’ expense.

Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords, Lord Newby, said removing hereditary peers is “a small but necessary contribution” to wider reform of the unelected chamber, saying while the bill is “limited in scope” his party supports it.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer previously pledged to abolish the parliamentary chamber in its present form altogether in favour of an elected chamber – but it is not clear if he is still committed to this plan.