House of Lords votes to block expulsion of hereditary peers

Glasgow Times

02-07-2025

Peers supported by 280 votes to 243, majority 37, an amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill that would instead see a gradual reduction of bloodline 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.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Gareth Fuller/PA)
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.