Hereditary Peerage AssociatioN
This page is not yet Fully in use but there follows a letter sent on behalf of the HPA in response to the Government's call for comments on the 2003 White Paper on Lords Reform
see also the Letters page
On behalf of
THE HEREDITARY PEERAGE ASSOCIATION
17' November, 2003.
Bola Akinbileje
Constitutional Policy Unit
Department for Constitutional Affairs
I st Floor
Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SWlE 6QT
Dear Sir,
Re: White
Paper: CP14/03 Constitutional Reform;
next steps for the House of Lords
On 3rd September, 2003, the Department for
Constitutional Affairs produced a White Paper entitled "Next steps for the
House of Lords". It was immediately clear from the title alone that the
words “the reform of” were missing. From the body of the document, it was
equally clear that only one significant element of further reform was intended.
I am writing on behalf of the Hereditary Peerage
Association, which represents many of the hereditary peers ejected from Parliament by the
House of Lords Act, 1999, to express the dismay that many of my members feel
about the blatant betrayal of trust which is evidenced by the White Paper.
It is our opinion that the 92 hereditary places
retained under the Act were to be so retained until the Government put forward
its proposals for reaching a finally reformed House which would endure
thereafter with its role and constitutional foundation subject to no further
upheaval. Only at that stage, would the role of the 92 hereditary peers be
terminated.
If the Government had intended that there should be
no further reform then what was the purpose in agreeing to retain 92 hereditary
peen in the first place?. If the only further reform envisaged is the removal of
those who remained after Stage I, then all should have been removed at that
time. Clearly, other changes were contemplated, such as direct elections, which
have now been abandoned. It follows that the 92 hereditary peers should
therefore remain until the Government puts forward a sensible and generally
acceptable stage II. If it is unable to do so, far from removing the remaining
92 hereditaries, it should admit to the
abject failure of its voyage of reform, and repeal the iniquitous House of
Lords Act.
Yours sincerely,
The Viscount Torrington
Joint Chairman
Revised 12.10.05