- Written by Brian Wheeler
- political reporter
image source, Getty Images
Hereditary peerages are likely to be eventually phased out if Labor wins the general election, the party leader in the House of Lords has suggested.
Baroness Smith said: “It’s difficult to justify holding a position in Parliament based on who your parents, grandparents etc. are.”
But the Conservative leader in the House of Lords said there was no strong case for change.
“If we eliminate all hereditary peerages, we will waste a lot of experience,” Lord True told MPs.
There are more than 800 hereditary aristocrats across the UK – people who inherited their titles from their parents, but only 92 of them have a seat in the House of Lords and can vote on legislation.
The last Labor government removed most of the hereditary peerages in 1999, but allowed 92 to remain in the compromise agreement until an agreement was reached to completely phase them out.
They have continued to increase the number of members by holding by-elections when one member retires or dies. Only holders of hereditary titles can stand in these by-elections, and the constituency is made up of sitting members of the House of Lords.
There have been several attempts over the years to abolish this system, but it remains in place.
“They were supposed to be temporary. They should have been completed a long time ago,” Baroness Smith told the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
But she stopped short of saying that all 92 hereditary peerages would be immediately expelled from the House of Lords if Labor won the election.
He told the committee he had an “open-minded view” on the matter and said MPs would have to wait for Labour’s election manifesto for details of Labour’s reform plans.
Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to abolish the House of Lords in its current form and replace it with an elected parliament, but this plan has already been watered down and is a priority for the next Labor government. This is unlikely to be an issue.
Baroness Smith pledged that Labor would not pack new members into the peerage, despite the fact that the Conservative Party currently outnumbers Labor by 100 members.
“I can tell you that there is no way a Labor government would appoint hundreds of new colleagues,” she told the committee.
He said Labor wanted to reduce the size of the House of Lords, which currently has 786 members. She told MPs she believes it should be the same size or smaller than the 650-member House of Representatives.
But at the same time, she said her “ideal” solution would be for the government and the main opposition parties to be “roughly equal in strength”, something that could be achieved over time.
Lord True said he was not “obsessed” with his colleagues’ numbers because many of them were not “professional” politicians and did not regularly take part in voting or debate.
“You don’t need sharp elbows to win a seat in the House of Lords,” he told the committee.
But he argued that many of his peers still had expertise to contribute and that “if it’s not a full-time house of professional politicians, it has to be bigger than the House of Commons to play that role.” .
He also warned against abolishing by-elections for hereditary peerages.
“The hereditary aristocracy, with an average age of just under 70 years, will disappear, leaving behind a fortuitous fully designated house.”
Lord True made clear his personal view, not that of the Government, that the House of Lords should be elected.
“But this is not where we are,” he added.
“In my judgment, we have a well-functioning parliamentary system of government and the next steps should be carefully considered and collectively considered.”
