Labour’s reform of the House of Lords is simply gerrymandering
The catastrophic collapse in the opinion polls of support for the Prime Minister is undoubtedly due to his hypocrisy on standards in public life and the realisation that the remedies promised by Labour at the election have not been thought through. Some are driven by counterproductive envy and nasty class prejudice. Reversing more than 400 years of history by imposing a tax on education is an example. House of Lords reform is another.
The Labour manifesto promised to remove the right of Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords and to introduce a mandatory retirement age. The first proposal has proved popular with Labour Peers in the Lords but the forced retirement at the end of a Parliament in which Peers reached 80 has unsurprisingly encountered strong opposition. The recent award of Peerages by Sir Keir Starmer to Margaret Hodge and Margaret Beckett, both of whom are over 80, suggests that the Prime Minister has had second thoughts. Perhaps he has realised his proposals would result in 369 Peers of whom 70 are women being kicked out of the Lords. This would reduce the size of the House to 435 and remove many of the most hard working and experienced Peers whilst leaving behind some of those who never turn up, or do so but make no contribution. The Leader of the Lords is inviting comments on how this latter problem could be addressed as the Government despite it being a manifesto promise has no answers.
The expulsion of the Exempted Hereditary Peers will weaken the ability of the opposition and the cross benches to hold the Government to account and create a second chamber of Parliament where every member owes their place to the unaccountable patronage of a Prime Minister. Given recent history this is not an ideal arrangement.
In 1999 the House of Lords Act resulted in the removal of 666 hereditary Peers. The Act allowed 92 to remain as exempted hereditaries following a “solemn and binding” promise by the Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine and the Prime Minister Tony Blair that they would remain as members until a comprehensive Reform of the House of Lords had taken place. By bringing forward the legislation to just expel the exempted hereditaries Sir Keir Starmer has broken that promise in a disgraceful piece of political gerrymandering aimed at weakening scrutiny of his Government by the House of Lords. The convention has always been that constitutional reform is done on an all Party basis and by agreement. The arrogance and recklessness of this Government knows no bounds with the leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon refusing to allow a debate on these important issues in the Chamber.
The Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has said “the Hereditary principle in Law making has lasted far too long and is out of step with modern Britain…people should not be voting on our laws in Parliament by an accident of birth”. Someone might tell him no laws are made without Royal Assent or is the Monarchy next on his modernising list?
I allowed myself a wry smile as I reflected on his words whilst watching Baroness Smith of Gilmore Hill, the widow of the late Labour Leader, John Smith introducing her daughter to the Lords this week as Baroness Smith of Cluny.
Mr Thomas-Symonds has as his ministerial colleague in the Cabinet Office Georgia Anne Rebuck Gould, the daughter of the late Lord Gould and Baroness Rebuck. Lord Falconer’s son Hamish was appointed a Minister in the Foreign Office and Stephen Kinnock, the son of Lord Kinnock former Labour Leader and the Labour Peer the late Glenys Kinnock is a Health Minister.
Poorly thought-out policy and hypocrisy are the hall marks of this Government. Party before Country turns out to be their mantra. We need a comprehensive approach to reform of Parliament if we are to regain the trust of the people. Labour has failed at the first fence and needs to think again.
Lord Forsyth is Chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers and a former Cabinet Minister