A CONTROVERSIAL system used to choose which aristocrats get to sit in the House of Lords has been suspended for six months due to the coronavirus outbreak.
The move to put hereditary peer by-elections on hold was among a series of changes to the operation of the upper chamber in response to “the current exceptional circumstances”, members heard.
Other measures include moving where peers vote to allow for social distancing and relaxing the rules to beef up the team of deputy speakers, who oversee the business of the House when it is sitting.
READ MORE: REVEALED: The Scottish Lord who claimed £52k without making a single speech
It comes after the Lord Speaker announced last week that he was “reluctantly” withdrawing from the House of Lords in view of the coronavirus advice for the over-70s.
Lord Fowler, 82, also said no member of the Lords, where the average age is 70, should consider “it is their duty” to attend during present circumstances.
Over the last week, there have been noticeably fewer peers in the chamber, and those that have been present have sat apart like the MPs.
Proposing the suspension of hereditary peer by-elections until September, Tory Lord leader Baroness Evans of Bowes Park said it was needed because without it one would have had to be held before June 26 “owing to an imminent retirement”.
READ MORE: MP calls for House of Lords to be abolished as report shows Scottish peers claim up to £68k
But the step has led to questions why it cannot be made permanent, given the extensive opposition to the contentious selection process.
Labour peer Lord Faulkner of Worcester argued if the Government could “make this possible now, why is it not possible otherwise”.
However, Lady Evans said: “I am sure you will agree this is a very sensible step in the circumstances. I have no doubt we will debate this matter further when we return to normal circumstances.”
There have been repeated demands in the Lords to scrap the exclusive contests used to fill vacancies caused by the death, resignation or expulsion of hereditary peers.
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