THREE Tory hereditary peers will take their seats in the House of Lords after being elected from an all-male list of candidates by a select group made up entirely of men.
Lord Sandhurst, the Earl of Leicester and Lord Altrincham are to join the red benches following the resumption of the controversial aristocrat ballots to the upper chamber, which had been suspended since last March because of the pandemic.
A total of 36 votes were cast by Conservative hereditary peers in the exclusive electronic poll, conducted using the single transferable vote system and carried out by Civica Election Services, formerly Electoral Reform Services.
READ MORE: Fresh demands to abolish Westminster's ‘absurd’ House of Lords system
The by-election, in which 21 candidates contested the three available places, followed the retirement of both the Earl of Selbourne and Lord Denham and the non-attendance of Lord Selsdon.
Lord Sandhurst practiced as a QC until retirement in 2019 and had served as chairman of the Bar Council and as a deputy High Court judge.
In his candidature statement, he said: “Living in Putney I will commit full time and loyally.”
After a six-year stint in the army, the Earl of Leicester had a 28-year career “developing sustainable businesses” in Norfolk and has also served on the boards of six charities.
In his election pitch, he said: “I now have time to serve my country and apply this experience to the House of Lords, an institution which I believe is the most effective reforming chamber in the western world.”
Lord Altrincham, 55, worked for Goldman Sachs led the rescue bailout of the Royal Bank of Scotland on behalf of the Treasury in 2008, according to his candidate statement, and is now a non-executive director of the Co-operative Bank.
Living in London, he said he would “commit energetically to the House of Lords with an interest in finance and mental health”.
A separate hereditary peers’ by-election was also held following the retirement last year of the independent crossbencher Countess Mar.
A total of 317 votes were cast in the poll of the whole House, which was won by Lord Londesborough in the sixth round.
Ten candidates – again all men – had contested the vacancy.
It marks a return to the chamber for Lord Londesborough, who within one week in 1999 took up his crossbench seat and made a single maiden-valedictory speech, days before it disappeared under Lords reforms, which reduced the number of hereditary places to 92.
READ MORE: Billionaire Peter Cruddas gave Tories £500,000 days after becoming a Lord
Describing himself as “hands-on entrepreneur and experienced public speaker”, he said in his election statement: “Standing for the first time, I would be an active, engaged member.”
The House authorities had previously said the suspension of the by-elections, branded by critics as “ridiculous and absurd”, could only be temporary as they were required by law.
There have been repeated demands in the Lords to scrap the contests used to fill vacancies caused by the death, resignation or expulsion of hereditary peers.
The system has faced widespread criticism given the exclusive male-dominated list of eligible candidates and the limited number of people able to vote.
The 92 hereditary places in the Lords are unaffected by steps to curb the size of the unelected chamber.
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