LABOUR’S watered-down plans to reform the House of Lords have passed their first parliamentary hurdle.
MPs voted on Tuesday to back the abolition of hereditary peerages.
There are currently 92 seats in the House of Lords reserved for peers who inherit their position.
Labour’s House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has passed its first vote in the Commons and will now go on to be scrutinised by a committee.
An amendment tabled by the opposition which said the bill was "not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change" was defeated by 453 Noes to 105 Ayes.
He argued the existence of hereditary peers was “parliamentary participation defined by the Game of Thrones principle”.
READ MORE: John Swinney hails plan to build 'world's largest liquid air energy site' in Scotland
Wishart criticised the lack of ambition from Labour in reforming the Lords, asking: “Where is the almost federalism that we in Scotland were promised in the independence referendum?”
He added: “This meagre rubbish hasn’t even got the credibility to call itself reform.”
Keir Starmer ran for election as Labour leader on a pledge to abolish the House of Lords, which was subsequently watered down.
Labour have also shelved plans to force peers to retire at the age of 80.
Opening the debate, Paymaster General Nick Thomas-Symonds said removing hereditary peers was a “matter of principle” for the Government.
He added: “In the 21st century there should not be places in our Parliament, making our laws, reserved for those born into certain families. In fact, we are one of only two countries that still retain that hereditary element in our legislatures, a clear sign the time has come to see through this long overdue change.”
The other country is Lesotho, whose Senate contains tribal chiefs who have their positions by birthright.
Labour faced questions during the debate on whether their stance meant they were against the monarchy.
Tory backbencher John Hayes asked whether Labour thought it was “wrong” the King is given his position because “he belongs to a certain family”.
Thomas-Symonds (above) replied: “No it isn’t because it’s a completely different part of our constitution. No monarch has actually refused royal assent to a law since the time of Queen Anne, and secondly, it’s a constitutional monarchy that enjoys popular support.”
Some Tory MPs also called for representatives of other faiths to be given places in the upper house.
There are 12 Anglican bishops in the second chamber alongside the 12 Lords Spiritual, who are all Anglican bishops.
READ MORE: Alex Salmond's body ready to be returned to Scotland, North Macedonia confirms
Speaking for the Opposition, shadow deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden said: “Just as with the Blair and Brown governments before, this Government seems obsessed with change for change’s sake. We’ve seen it all before, rebranding spun to give the impression of progress.”
He added: “Now, one of the central arguments evinced by the Paymaster General is that no one in Parliament should be there by, quote, ‘an accident of birth’. Yet today’s Labour Party reeks of the hereditary principle.
“The elevation of the nepo babies of north London, the coronation of the red princes: the Falconers, the Kinnocks, the Benns, the Eagles, the Reeves – many of them distinguished members, but under Labour’s closed shop, it’s hereditary peers out, hereditary MPs in.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel