THE remaining 92 hereditary peers said farewell to the House of Lords last week, at the end of the parliamentary term. They had survived for a quarter of a century longer than most other hereditary peers, who were removed after the passing of the 1999 House of Lords Act by a Blair government that was zealous for constitutional reform. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which was passed in March, removed the remaining peers from the upper chamber once and for all (although reports suggest that a few dozen will be handed life peerages, enabling them to return to the red benches). Many have said not only farewell but also good riddance to the hereditary peers. The Paymaster General and Minister for European Relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, described it as “indefensible that, in the 21st century, there are seats in our legislature allocated by an accident of birth. This is a long-overdue reform and a progressive first step on the road of change. To maintain trust in our democratic institutions, it is important our second chamber reflects modern Britain.”

The deed is done, so there is little point in rehashing here the arguments for and against hereditary peers. We would, however, wish to acknowledge the many departing peers who, in the words of the Speaker of the Lords, Lord Forsyth, brought “an ethos of service, a long view, and, not least, independence of mind”, as well as “a willingness to speak plainly, to resist passing fashions, and to act according to conscience rather than convenience”.

We would question Mr Thomas-Symonds’s implication that the removal of hereditary peers will “maintain trust” in Parliament. As Doug Cowan, of the Electoral Reform Society, writes, “removing hereditary peers does not make the House of Lords democratic. It remains an unelected chamber dominated by political appointments, dodgy donors and pals of past prime ministers”. Gerald Warner, a former adviser to Conservative governments, accuses the Government of “removing the one component of the House of Lords that was not dependent on patronage”.

But there is at least one component of the House that remains free from political patronage: the Lords Spiritual. An amendment to the Hereditary Peers Bill sought to remove them, too, but it was, thankfully, overwhelmingly rejected. Perhaps they had listened to the Bishop of Sheffield, who said in a take-note debate that the serving bishops made three contributions to parliamentary democracy: “independence, expertise, and a voice from civil society”. As the Government continues on its march to reform the Lords, we hope that, in its drive to “reflect modern Britain”, it does not end up with an upper chamber devoid of voices that speak out of concern for the common good, rather than a desire to please their political masters.