Don’t abolish us, cry Britain’s aristocratic lawmakers

LONDON — Britain’s new Labour government faced fury in the House of Lords Thursday as it unveiled plans to ax the second chamber’s hereditary members, who are there by birthright.
New legislation will prevent the remaining 92 hereditary peers, who inherited their titles from their parents, from sitting and voting in the upper house — a bid to fix what Labour sees as a major democratic anachronism.
“This is a high-handed, shoddy, political act removing some of our most serious, senior and experienced peers,” said Tom Strathclyde, a Conservative hereditary peer who sits in the Lords as Baron Strathcylde. The former Cabinet minister criticized the lack of any consultation with opposition parties by Labour.
“Are there no proposals about removing those peers from the house who very rarely come rather than those who have shown an active commitment over many years?” he asked in a House of Lords session Thursday.
The move seeks to complete action by the last Labour government in 1999. Tony Blair’s administration revoked the 700-year-right of hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, but he struck a deal to let 92 aristocrats keep their seats in the upper chamber.
The remaining 800-or-so hereditary peers around Britain who missed out on seats now jostle it out for limited places when one of their existing number dies or retires.
Britain’s current hereditary members are all men. There are 42 Tory hereditary peers and 28 crossbenchers — but only two Labour hereditary peers.
Opponents of the legislation said Blair’s administration was more adept at reaching a compromise.
But, speaking for the government, House of Lords Leader Angela Smith said: “There wasn’t agreement during the passage of the [1999] bill … further discussions took place and temporary arrangements were made on a transitional basis.”
In a fig leaf to the opposition, the government will allow parties to reintroduce former hereditary peers as “life peers,” whose title dies with them. Proposals requiring all members of the House of Lords to retire at the end of the parliamentary session in which they turn 80 are not included as consultation remains ongoing.
Tory life peer Michael Forsyth, who chairs the Association of Conservative Peers, argued the proposals were designed to reduce scrutiny. “This is a naked attempt to disable opposition in this house,” he said. “What the government is doing is undermining the ability of us to carry out our duties effectively.”
Shadow Lords Leader Nicholas True did not offer an official position from the opposition Conservatives — currently in search of a new leader — on Labour’s shake-up. Be he stressed the best way to achieve constitutional change is “by consensus and not on the basis of divisive and partisan legislation.”
Labour’s plans are a downgrade from a plan it formulated — and then later dropped — in opposition to abolish the House of Lords entirely and replace it with an elected second chamber.