On Wednesday, April 29th, at lunchtime, the Archbishop of Sheffield led prayers in the Upper House of Parliament. Then, following ancient tradition, the noble lords and ladies turned their backs to the chamber, reminiscent of football fans celebrating. Each day begins with prayers, and for centuries, the assembly has prayed while facing the walls behind them. However, on this occasion, a small number of those present permanently turned their backs to the chamber. This parliamentary session that ended this week was the last one attended by hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
Thank you, that’s all. After seven hundred years, barely anyone mentioned their departure. “At the close of this sitting, those noble lords who sit by virtue of their hereditary peerages will cease to be members of this chamber,” declared Michael Forsyth, the Lord President. “On behalf of the chamber, I pay tribute to their eminent service and offer our sincere thanks.” Just one sentence. Before the 2024 elections, Labor politician Sir Keir Starmer often talked about abolishing the House of Lords, but for now, it has not materialized. His only reform to date is the mandatory withdrawal of around 85 hereditary peers, of which 25 will return as life peers.
One can assume that Lord Forsyth of Drumlean was wise not to make a big deal out of it, as it is quite an insignificant development. It would be challenging, both morally and democratically, to defend in the 21st century the idea of a seat in the House of Lords held by virtue of birthright. And yet, that is far from the institution’s worst aberration.
The House of Lords is not a democracy, but in theory, it is a meritocracy. Since the country has begun rotating its Prime Ministers, the composition of the House of Lords has radically changed. Out go the hereditary peers, and in come the buddies. The upper house increasingly seems like a mere rubber stamp for decisions made in the lower House of Commons, depriving it of any real utility.
Recently, cronyism has exploded within the House of Lords, a practice that Starmer has embraced with incredible enthusiasm, irritating the electorate more than the relatively modest number of hereditary peerages. As for the future, we can only hope to understand what the Prime Minister hopes to achieve with the upper chamber. The elimination of hereditary peers is a gesture, not a solution. He may have had a solution at some point, but like the noble lords and ladies shown the door, time may run out.
