Lord Strathclyde, a departing Conservative hereditary peer, said Wednesday had been a “sad and miserable day to be thrown out of the House of Lords” and condemned a move he said shifted the dial too far towards political appointees.
“The hereditaries were only 10% of the House,” he added.
“They did no harm and provided historical perspective, so this just feels wrong.”
The government has committed to further reforms to the House of Lords, including the introduction of a participation requirement for members and a retirement age. Select committee reports on the changes are expected later this year.
The changes on Wednesday complete an overhaul that started a quarter of a century ago, when in 1999, Tony Blair’s government reduced the number of hereditary peers in the Lords from 759 to 92, in a compromise with the Conservatives.
Retired Tory peer Lord Salisbury, who helped negotiate that compromise, said that although he felt “quite sentimental” about the end of a tradition dating back to the 13th century, he had always believed there needed to be a reformed second chamber that enjoyed the support and respect of the modern public, without threatening the authority of the House of Commons.
“When I was negotiating with Tony Blair all those years ago, I was clear that if you simply remove the hereditaries, you leave a purely nominated chamber,” he said.
“What you have is an extraordinary increase in the power of patronage of the prime minister, and that is a very powerful political tool.”
Lord Salisbury recommended pulling in councillors nominated by councils from across the country to sit in the Lords.
Having indirectly elected members means these new peers would not threaten the mandate of MPs, he explained, but would also “give local government a voice in Parliament and would be a balancing power against the diktats of Whitehall”.
