Backward MPs end all hereditary peers

MPs have backed plans to get rid of all hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

A bill moving through Parliament would remove the 92 seats reserved for peers who inherit their titles through their families.

MPs voted in favor of the government’s proposals by 435 votes to 73. The bill will now go to the Lords, where it is expected to face stiff opposition.

The Conservatives opposed the plans, with shadow Cabinet Secretary Alex Burghart claiming the government was “seeking to remove established pollsters to replace them with appointed Labor members”.

But during a debate in the Commons, some MPs also called on the government to go further.

Conservative Sir Gavin Williamson put forward proposals for Church of England bishops to be removed from the Lords, but these were rejected by MPs.

He argued that it was “fundamentally unfair” for a bloc of clerics “to have a right and a say in our legislation”.

“For me, as someone who is Anglican, I don’t see why I have a greater right to greater representation than my children who are Catholic,” he said.

He added that the 26 bishops in the Lords were from England alone and “probably do not reflect the world today”.

SNP MP Pete Wishart said the unelected House of Lords should be abolished entirely, adding that “if you represent the people you should be voted for by the people”.

He told the Commons that the government’s proposals were “pathetic” and “should have been done centuries ago”.

As well as promising to bring “immediate modernisation” to the Lords by abolishing hereditary peers, Labour’s general election manifesto promised to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80 for members of the upper house.

He also said the party was committed to replacing the House of Lords with “an alternative second chamber which is more representative of regions and nations”.

But these changes are not included in the bill and the government has not set a timetable for when they will be delivered.

Defending the government’s approach, Cabinet minister Ellie Reeves said previous attempts to reform the Lords “all in one go” had failed and the government wanted to see “immediate reform”.

She added that the government would then consult on how to deliver on its other manifest commitments on the House of Lords.

Reeves said the government “appreciates the good work done by the hereditary peers” but the bill was “a matter of principle”.

“It cannot be right in the 21st century to have seats in our legislature reserved for those born into certain families,” she told the Commons.

Meanwhile, peers also took part in their own debate on the reform of the Lords.

Conservative peer Lord True was among those who criticized the government’s plans.

The shadow leader of the House of Lords claimed the aim of the bill was “partisan” to remove “88 peers who don’t align with Labor and four who do”.

He also said the move would cause “a great deal of hurt”.

“The execution will have to be done up close, brushing shoulders in the halls as we go to vote to remove highly respected colleagues.”

A Tory peer and former cabinet minister, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, accused Labor of “a disgraceful piece of political manipulation” designed to “loosen control” of the government.

“If the opposition party continues with this act of constitutional vandalism, it has yet to see anything,” he warned.

The job of the House of Lords is to scrutinize the work of the government and recommend changes to proposed legislation.

Most peers are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister.

Most of the hereditary peers were abolished in 1999 under the last Labor government, leaving just 92 in a compromise deal with the Conservatives.