Eliot Wilson Eliot Wilson

Labour’s plan to abolish hereditary peers is pointless

King Charles and Queen Camilla in the House of Lords (Credit: Getty images)

Labour’s House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to the Commons – which was presented today and will have its first substantive debate at second reading later in the autumn – is simple: it essentially ends the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords, tying off what some will see as a loose end of Sir Tony Blair’s ‘stage one’ reform of the upper chamber in the House of Lords Act 1999.

That legislation offered a compromise to opponents. At the end of 1998, Blair had concluded a secret deal with the leader of the Conservative peers, Viscount Cranborne, for 92 hereditary peers to remain in the Lords as an interim measure. These were the Earl Marshal (the Duke of Norfolk, by heredity) and the Lord Great Chamberlain (currently Lord Carrington, but shared between three families by rotation), and 90 others elected for the first time in October and November 1999.

This does nothing to improve the functioning of parliament

The continued – if much diminished – presence of hereditary peers was never intended to be a permanent feature of the House of Lords.

Get Britain's best politics newsletters

Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Written by
Eliot Wilson

Eliot Wilson was a clerk in the House of Commons 2005-16, including on the Defence Committee. He is a member of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

Topics in this article

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in