All Peers have just been alerted by the Clerk of the Parliaments that there will be a “Hereditary Peers’ By-election on 16 July: “The death of Lord Reay on 10 May 2013 has created a vacancy among the excepted hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords.” Because he was a Deputy Speaker “under Standing Order 10(3), his successor will be elected by the whole House.”
You will recall that the continuation of any Hereditary Peers was agreed at the last minute by the Labour leadership in 1999, when most hereditaries were sent packing, on the understanding that comprehensive democratic reform would follow in a matter of a few months, making it strictly temporary. We are still waiting.
Now there are two Private Member’s Bills – one in the offing from Dan Byles MP in the Commons and one already presented by Lady Hayman in the Lords – which could end the by-elections, ceasing once and for all the odd British habit of handing down seats in Parliament alongside country estates. Don’t hold your breath, though. I am not sure that either Bill will manage to end the by-elections in this Session. When my colleague David Steel (Lord Steel of Aikwood to be entirely proper) tried to abolish them, he was thwarted by a hereditary reactionary onslaught.
The principled case for ending hereditary privilege is clear. But those who ascribe a serious practical advantage to this change – that it would somehow reduce the size of the House, enabling fresh blood to be introduced without yet more over-crowding and excessive cost – are permitting hope to triumph over probability. The Hereditaries are relatively young (compared with the mainly-retired Lifers), so won’t die off quick enough. We could have to wait up to 40 years for the Grim Reaper to do the eviction job which Parliament itself is too queasy to undertake.
Difficult though it is to admit for those Life Peers now harrumphing about the size of the House, the only effective way to reduce the membership and cost of the Lords is a proper, comprehensive reform. The Coalition Government’s 2012 Bill, which gained the support of such a huge majority of all MPs, in all Parties, in July last year, would have done the job – but as we know it was sabotaged by the failure of the Labour leadership to back a sensible timetable agreement.
Meanwhile, the other reason for reformers to permit themselves a wry smile during this next by-election is that Peers will use the Alternative Vote to make an informed choice. Remember AV? Apparently it is good enough for the House of Lords – in the view of the Conservative and Labour Parliamentarians who opposed it so violently in 2011 – but not suitable for the public to use when choosing MPs.
And, irony or ironies, had Conservatives not resisted the adoption of AV in that referendum, Conservative leaders might now have a realistic chance of getting the 2nd preference votes of UKIP supporters in the 2015 General Election, and of surviving in Government!
Lord Tyler,
It was open to Nick Clegg to adopt the Steel Bill – or even to amend it so as to allow a constrained size of house and some indirect ‘democratic legitimacy’ as outlined in journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/1667 – but he apparently took the view it should be his highly criticised plan or nothing. I maintain he could he could have attained many of his objectives if he had adopted such an approach, as do some of your colleagues. The hereditaries argument would also be met – such a thing being final reform rather than the mere abolition of the thing supposed to promote final reform.
Re AV – different methods suit different purposes. It wasn’t, of course, just ‘Conservative and Labour Parliamentarians’ who opposed AV in 2011.
Those reactionary hereditaries were quite jusitified in their position – They must stay there for as long as needs be; until a proper ‘Stage Two’ reform is implemented. Lord Tyler, I know that you want serious change to happen, but everytime this comes up, I have to labour the same old point ~ Life peers are in no position to criticise the presence of hereditaries in the house; the former have not been elected in any way, shape or form – They are not willing to (literally) submit themselves to the judgement of their peers (as the hereditaries have do).
Still no votes for the public.
Still the attitude, we have to do as you dictate.
Still no bills at all on getting rid of the crooks in the lords.
Still state secrecy about the actions of peers that bring the Lords into disrepute.
No, just votes for the chosen.
The AV part of this post appears to have been picked up by yesterday’s Evening Standard, unless you have been making the same comments elsewhere.
Surely politicians should be campaigning for the electoral system they believe in as a matter of principle, not becasue they think it’ll win them more seats? Even the BNP opposed AV, despite conceding that they would gain from it. So do the Lib Dems support AV as a matter of principle, or because they think it’ll be beneficial to themselves electorally?
Back again to reveal that clear fact to the world that the UK is not a democracy.
It is a strange and covert organisation with an unelected dynasty at it’s head. Who then appoints at will from aristocrats, to keep it class heavy, and adds politically correct mouthers who make sure those in the palaces, no matter who they may be, thoroughbred or not, stay in situ at the cost of the working poor.
What larks Pip!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-MvsZ2QxwM
I completely disagree with Lords Reform. What I believe is that the 1999 Act should be repealed and the hereditary peers given the seats back. If you wish to reduce the size of the House, how come you have never thought of creating less Life Peers?