House of Lords votes to block expulsion of hereditary peers
The amendment, put forward by shadow culture minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would abolish the aristocratic by-elections, meaning the number of hereditary peers would decrease as individuals die or retire.
There are currently 92 seats reserved for members of the Lords who are there by right of birth, but there are only 86 currently sitting.
This is because by-elections were suspended after Labour won the election last year and six hereditary peers have left the House since then by death, retirement or moving on.
Lord Parkinson argued that current sitting hereditary peers have 'served here with distinction and, in many cases, with more conspicuous industry than those who have been appointed'.
He told peers: 'I hope, through this modest amendment, we can applaud their diligence and their public service and seek to harness it for the benefit of the nation for a while longer.'
There have been numerous attempts to end the hereditary by-elections since their inception 26 years ago, including from Labour peer Lord Grocott.
Lord Parkinson said: 'The formulation he (Lord Grocott) has proposed in every parliamentary session since 2016, apart from this one, is exactly the same as the one we advance today.
'Just as with peers who proposed private bills under the last Labour government, he has found it difficult to make progress with his bills under Conservative governments.'
However, he said: 'On this, we give in… We yield to the mandate that they've won at the ballot box and take it at their word that further reform will follow.'
The Tory frontbencher concluded that, in return, he asks for 'clemency and generosity' to those hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords to allow them to remain for the rest of their life if they wish.
Meanwhile, Lord Groccot said: 'I'm finding it difficult to compute exactly what's going on today because Friday after Friday, bill after bill, to a three-quarters empty House, I have been faced with substantial opposition, not just from individual members – not exclusively from the Tory Party, but overwhelmingly – but also from the Government, and the bill's got no further.
'And here we are now with a pretty full House all agreed that these by-elections are farcical.'
He said his motive in bringing forward his bills were to 'stop this absurdity' and lamented that 'time and time again' his bills were rejected and filibustered.
Lord Grocott said he had thought that no-one in the upper chamber could think a by-election to get into the House should be exclusively for men, or that it is feasible to have 'an electorate of three when you've got seven candidates'.
The Labour peer added: 'I'm flattered, I suppose, to find that suddenly everyone seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought this in first in 2016.'
However, he said he prefers plans to expel the hereditary peers over ending the by-elections because it's 'better' and 'does the job more effectively', allowing the conversation to move on to further reform.
Lord Grocott concluded: 'Thank heavens that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It's long, long, long overdue.
'It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let's not cry over spilt milk, let's just get on with this and get on with it quickly.'
Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said she is sure the Tories 'regret' not taking up her offer to ensure Lord Grocott's bill passed through the House.
She said: 'We could have done that and that opportunity was lost. It's a shame it was lost, but that's where we are now. We now are debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party…
'The principle of this was established 25 years ago that the hereditary principle would not be a route into this House.
'That does not decry any individual member who's arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end.'
It is expected that the House of Commons will reject this amendment to the Bill.
Before the vote, former senior diplomat Lord Kerr of Kinlochard warned that ping-pong between the two Houses would be 'poison' and 'disastrous' for the image of the Lords.
Later, peers rejected a move by the Liberal Democrats that would have forced the Government to bring forward proposals for an elected House of Lords.
The bid to secure 'a democratic mandate' for the upper chamber was defeated by 263 votes to 84, majority 179.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE How Labour is 'taxing the high street into bankruptcy': Family-run pubs, bakeries and shops are hit with sneaky 200% hikes in business rates
Labour was today accused of 'taxing the high street into bankruptcy' through their punishing 'stealth' levy on small firms. Since Rachel Reeves quietly reduced much–needed reliefs last autumn, family–run pubs, bakeries and restaurants have been battered a rise in business rates. Startling figures recorded by one council reveal an independent pub was stung by a 226 per cent hike in fees, costing them almost £17,000 for one year. Meanwhile, supermarkets escaped with rises of as little as one per cent in business rates, which are similar to council tax for non–domestic properties. Although MailOnline has only obtained business rate rises for Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) – an area that covers Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and Biggleswade, experts warn the situation will be mirrored up and down the country. Cllr John Baker, who controls the pursestrings at CBC, said: 'The government seems totally incapable of controlling public spending, clobbering business to fund its profligate behaviour. 'If the Chancellor is serious about improving the poor economic climate, reversing those outrageous hikes in business rates and allowing businesses to hire more people would be a sensible first step.' Department stores and supermarkets are also in the firing line in the Chancellor's next Budget. In hope of clawing back billions, Ms Reeves is expected to increase business rates for bigger firms – despite warnings it will only accelerate the decline of the high street and lead to price rises. In last autumn's budget, Ms Reeves boasted that she was extending business rates reliefs for retail, hospitality, and leisure. But she actually reduced the Covid-era discount from 75 to 40 per cent – capped at £110,000 across an entire business. Smaller businesses are typically the biggest beneficiaries because they have fewer locations to spread this discount across. During the same budget, branded a 'disaster' by critics, Ms Reeves hiked employer National Insurance contributions and cut the threshold at which firms become liable to pay them. The minimum wage also rose to £12.21 an hour. The Federation of Small Businesses warned the triple whammy posed 'an existential threat to the future of the high street'. Paul Wilson, the FSB's policy chief, told MailOnline the 40 per cent relief was 'scant consolation for a squeezed business owners trying to find thousands of pounds'. He said businesses couldn't fight back by hiking their own prices because customers 'can only afford so much'. Job cuts and shorter opening hours – caused by businesses trying to claw back cash – risked handing bigger players an even greater advantage, Mr Wilson claimed. He said: 'The feedback were are hearing is that businesses are having to take those difficult decisions to scale back. High street businesses are questioning whether they can genuinely afford to keep competing with online.' The FSB's latest survey showed a record 41 per cent of small businesses now believe the tax burden is a top three barrier to growth. In Bedfordshire, local pubs and restaurants have seen their rates more than double. Data provided by Cllr Baker shows this costs businesses as much as £25,000 a year – more than a minimum wage full–time workers' annual salary. Award–winning pub, the Black Lion, on Leighton Buzzard High Street, was hit with a 226 per cent rise (£16,900) in its rates, from around £7,400 to £24,300. By contrast, many big supermarkets such as Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury's saw their rates raise by less than two per cent. Other firms have seen even bigger jump proportionally, including upmarket eatery Eileen's by Steve Barringer – a MasterChef: The Professionals finalist – where rates have shot up 260 per cent, from £300 to £1,080. What are business rates and who has to pay? Business rates are charged on most non-domestic properties, including shops, offices, pubs, warehouses, factories and holiday rental homes or guest houses. Rates are calculated by the Valuation Office Agency, part of HM Revenues and Customs, based on the cost of renting the business premises for a year, currently from April 2021. A rates 'multiplier' is then used to come to the final amount. This number has risen from about 34p in the pound in 1990 to 54.6p today for premises with a rateable value more than £51,000 or 49.9p for if it is less. Certain properties are exempt from business rates, for example farm buildings or places used for the welfare of disabled people. Other firms are entitled to discounts based on the nature and size of their business, for example, independent pubs and shops are likely to be eligible for at least one relief. Our analysis suggested that, on average, independent food and drink venues saw a 120 per cent rise in business rates, compared to an average of just one per cent for bigger firms. We have defined independent businesses as any which receives a relief designed to help what many would consider small or independent local firms. This is wider than just the businesses that get 'small business rates relief', which only applies to property with a rateable value of less than £15,000 and if the business has only one premise. Husband and wife Anthony and Anne Smith, who have owned and run two framing shops in Bedfordshire for the past 40 years, have been hit by a 150 per cent rise in their business rates. It will cost them more than £5,500 extra a year. Allframe, which employs half a dozen staff across the Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable sites, will likely have to raise their prices more than expected to cope, despite fears this could disrupt sales. Mr Smith told MailOnline: 'The problem you've got in any business when you get price increases is that you have to absorb the increase or put prices up. 'We've tried not to put our prices up as we're a luxury business. 'People need to go to to Tesco and Aldi to put food on the table... but don't need to get their pictures framed professionally.' The picture framer added that rates rises will 'ultimately go into it when we reevaluate prices'. Mr Smith added: 'Five thousands pounds is a lot to come off your bottom line in one fell swoop, when it's something you weren't expecting.' 'It will mean our prices go up more than we would have liked them to. It's going to impact on our profitability.' 'I think there's a general feeling that it's always small and medium businesses that that get hit,' Steve Watkins, cabinet member for business at Central Bedfordshire Council told MailOnline. 'These businesses have struggled since the pandemic and have not been able to get back to where they were before. 'The Government should target the big players in the market, rather than smaller businesses. Where's the huge tax increases on Starbucks and Amazon? 'If they want to regenerate town centres they are going about it the wrong way by making it harder for small businesses to survive.' He said the added costs are making it 'harder then ever' for small business owners, who are already facing skyrocketing rents, energy bills and wage bills, adding that they were at 'the end of their tether'. In Labour's manifesto, the PM pledged to replace business rates – which he said 'disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets' – with a new system. Business rates are calculated based on multiplying the 'rateable value' – an estimate of the annual rent in April 2021 prices – by a multiplier of 49.9p for the smallest of businesses, and 55.5p for all others. The Government announced last year it will permanently introduce a lower multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with a rateable value of less than £500,000. The multiplier value is yet to be announced. Cllr Watkins accused Sir Keir of 'not being upfront with people' over the reduction in the rates relief, saying the announcement was the 'politics of spin'. He said the rates were a 'stealth tax' on business and were not as 'generous' as the Government claims, adding they 'absolutely have the possibility of taxing high streets and small businesses into bankruptcy'. Cllr Watkins added that if the direction of travel continues, it was hard to see how local businesses will still be around in a few years time, leading to an 'increasingly soulless high street'. 'If this is the first step to reforming, I dread to see what the next steps will be, as these ones have gone down like a cup of cold sick,' he added. 'Technocratic governments are big on five to ten year plans, but these businesses need plans now. 'The proof will be in the pudding... but the fact that they've not been upfront so far suggests we need to dig beneath the surface before I start clapping my hands.' A Government spokesman told MailOnline: 'Our reform to the business rates system will create a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment, and levels the playing field. 'A new, permanently lower business rates in 2026 will benefit over 280,000 retail, hospitality and leisure business properties and will be sustainably funded by a new, higher rate on the 1% of most valuable business properties.'
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour stokes union anger by failing to curb outsourcing
Labour is facing backlash from unions as data revealed spending on outsourcers has surged since Sir Keir Starmer took office. Public sector spending on outsourcing contracts has risen 7pc since Labour secured the election victory last year, despite the party promising to crack down on public procurement. Data from Tussell showed the value of contracts awarded to outsourcing giants including Mitie and G4S has increased to £3.68bn since Labour gained power, compared to £3.45bn under the former Conservative government in the year before. The increase comes after Rachel Reeves in 2021 pledged to slash spending on outsourcers by ushering in the 'biggest wave of insourcing of public services for a generation' with the aim of saving money and improving public services. Trade unions have now hit out at Labour over its failure to cut spending following a series of clashes between outsourcing giants and some of Britain's biggest unions over contractors' treatment of workers. Fran Heathcote, general secretary of PCS, said: 'Before the election, Labour promised the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, yet these figures suggest the tide is going out on that pledge. 'PCS represents thousands of workers on outsourced contracts who often suffer lower pay and worse terms and conditions … than those employed in-house. Labour needs to accelerate its commitment to insourcing.' A spokesman for Unison added: 'The Government has promised to bring privatised contracts back in-house. Unions will keep up the pressure to ensure this happens for the benefit of workers, the economy and communities across the UK.' Mitie in the spotlight Mitie has been the largest beneficiary of Labour's contracts so far, Tussell's figures show. Unions have repeatedly clashed with the London-listed outsourcing giant, accusing it of failing to pay staff adequately and mistreating workers. The awards have seen Mitie given £1.59bn worth of contacts since Sir Keir took office, including a £320m contract from HM Revenue & Customs for facilities management and a £1.08bn contract from the Department for Work and Pensions for security services. The contracts now risk further straining the Labour Party's relations with the unions that provide it with millions of pounds of funding each year. The Government is already facing mounting criticism over its relationship with Mitie after Britain's largest union, Unison threatened to picket a Labour Party drinks reception earlier this month, that was set to be held at Mitie's headquarters in the Shard. Trade unions had voiced concerns that the Mitie-sponsored event stood at odds with Labour's own plans to cut the Government's reliance on outsourcers. A source close to the Labour Party said: 'Commercial partnerships at events are a long-standing practice and have no bearing on party or government policy.' Mitie itself has repeatedly been subject to a series of strikes led by some of Britain's largest trade unions, including by Unison, which in February 2024 led a three-day walkout by 300 cleaners, porters and caterers from hospitals run by Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, in the West Midlands. On Friday, 200 cleaners and security guards represented by GMB voted to lead a separate strike over pay at the Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria, starting on Aug 1. A Mitie spokesman said: 'We are committed to helping our public sector partners build safer, stronger and more resilient communities, supporting people and places to thrive across the UK. Further clashes G4S, which has also clashed with unions, was the second largest beneficiary of Labour's spending on outsourcers, according to Tussell's figures, which show the security company has been awarded 16 contracts worth £1.05bn since Labour took power a year ago, including a £905m contract from the DWP. PCS is currently engaged a long-running dispute with G4S over pay for security guards working on the outsourcer's contract with the DWP for security at job centres. G4S was approached for comment. Sodexo has been the third biggest winner of contracts awarded under Labour, with the company winning four contracts worth another £615m since last July, including a £310m award from HMRC. A Sodexo spokesman said: 'Sodexo is proud to hold strategic supplier status as a preferred and trusted partner to Government.' A government spokesman said: 'The data referenced includes spending by devolved governments. 'Public sector bodies must already ensure any outsourcing decisions deliver on these priorities, but we are going further and consulting on a requirement that they carry out a public interest test before outsourcing any service – which would move the dial in favour of insourcing contracts.'
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Sunday shows round-up: Reed puts his job on the line over water targets
Environment Secretary Steve Reed puts his job on the line over water targets The government has announced plans to halve sewage pollution from water companies by 2030, with the help of £104 billion of private investment. On the BBC this morning, Laura Kuenssberg interviewed Environment Secretary Steve Reed, noting that halving current sewage pollution would only bring us back to the levels of 2019, when there were 225,000 sewage spills. Reed claimed that that wasn't the end of the government's ambition, and said the target was to restore all water bodies to 'good health' within a decade. Reed emphasised that water pollution has got worse every year, and that Labour have drawn a line now to 'turn this situation around'. He called for a 'revolution in the rules that govern our water sector' in order to meet targets where previous governments have failed. Kuenssberg asked if water companies would be allowed to increase bills again, and Reed admitted it would be up to the regulators. When asked if his job should be on the line if he fails to meet his targets, Reed replied, 'it should be, shouldn't it?' Farage on nationalising 50% of the water industry: 'It doesn't need to be a big sum of money' Also speaking to Kuenssberg about the water sector was Nigel Farage, who proposed taking half of the industry into public control. Kuenssberg pointed out that it could cost in the region of £50bn, and asked how much taxpayers money Farage would be willing to spend to achieve this goal. Farage said he didn't know the figure, but he believed it would be 'much less than that, if you strike the right deal'. Kuenssberg noted that Farage used to say Corbyn's economics were from 'La La Land' when he wanted to nationalise water. Farage argued that he didn't want government running water entirely, but that the state needed 'some degree of control'. Kevin Hollinrake: 'I'm worried it might just be shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic' It is expected that Ofwat will be abolished and replaced by a new water regulator, as a result of recommendations made by the review which will be published on Monday. On Sky News, Trevor Phillips asked Shadow Housing Secretary Kevin Hollinrake whether he supported that decision. Hollinrake said that 'good regulation' was necessary, and welcomed Labour's new targets around water pollution, saying they were possible because of measures the Conservatives had put in place, but he compared the water industry to the 'Titanic'. Phillips asked whether the Tories effectively launched the Titanic when they privatised the industry. Hollinrake argued that the level of investment achieved after privatisation wouldn't have happened if it was in public control. Phillips noted that a lot more investment was required over the next couple of decades, and that companies couldn't meet those amounts when answering to shareholders. Hollinrake suggested that in a nationalised system there wouldn't be enough public money to invest in all essential public services. Steve Reed: 'If people think they're more important than the team, they need to think again' Trevor Phillips also asked Steve Reed about the four MPs who were suspended from Labour this week. The prime minister told reporters that 'everyone was elected on a Labour manifesto of change', and said he had to 'deal with people who repeatedly break the whip'. Phillips pointed out that Starmer had declared the welfare reform bill to have the achieved the 'right balance' after amending it due to resistance from Rachael Maskell, who was then suspended. Phillips asked why she was being punished. Reed said, 'it's not about one incident, it is about the team'. When asked whether Starmer was being fair, the environment secretary argued it was fair to 'be required to play the team game', and said that Labour needed to get 'big changes through'. Farage on net zero: 'This is not my religion' Laura Kuenssberg also asked Nigel Farage about climate change, after Reform UK's Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire Dame Andrea Jenkyns claimed it 'doesn't exist' this week. Farage said he believed in climate change, but had 'no idea' what proportion of it was man-made. The Reform leader said net zero is the 'religion of Westminster now in a fairly Godless age', but claimed that 2.5 million manufacturing jobs in Britain could be gone 'within the next decade' because of net zero policies. Kuenssberg pointed out that there is scientific consensus that human activity has a significant impact on the climate. Farage argued that UK taxpayers were being 'defrauded' of billions of pounds because of renewable energy subsidies for 'literally zero effect on global CO2 emissions'. Farage claimed that net zero policies just export manufacturing and emissions to other parts of the world. Ed Davey: Move further towards renewable energy, not 'expensive gas' Finally, Laura Kuenssberg interviewed Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, who said he was 'disappointed in this Labour government', and called for 'big ideas' to counter Nigel Farage. Davey told Kuenssberg that we must 'halve… businesses' energy bills within the decade', by investing further in renewable energy. He argued that it is the price of gas that has been raising energy bills, and that the Liberal Democrats have a plan to make the country less reliant on 'expensive gas from Vladimir Putin'.
