THE Queen's Speech: Hereditary Peers - Blair to forfeit patronage monopoly

THE GOVERNMENT promised new safeguards last night in an attempt to head off criticism of its plans to scrap the rights of the 750 hereditary peers.

Tony Blair denied charges that he would flood the chamber with "Tony's cronies" to replace the hereditaries, who will lose their 900-year-old right to speak and vote in the Lords. He said no one party would enjoy an overall majority in the new-look House.

Downing Street said the hereditaries would not be replaced by the same number of life peers - so the 1,300-strong Upper House will see its membership drop sharply. Mr Blair reiterated his pledge to surrender his "sole power of patronage" to select new peers, although he gave no details of how the new appointments system would work.

Number 10 said the "strong independent element" of the 322 crossbenchers not allied to any party would be preserved. It insisted that these guarantees would preserve "the best of the present House and remove the worst" until Labour moved on to stage two of its Lords reform - which could eventually see two-thirds of the members of the second chamber elected and one-third appointed.

The Queen promised a Royal Commission to review further changes and "speedily" bring forward proposals. Although it is due to report within two years, ministers admit privately that stage two will not be implemented before the next general election. The Tories claim that stage two may never materialise, leaving the "transitional House" outlined by Downing Street yesterday as a permanent fixture.

The battle over the hereditaries will dominate the parliamentary year which began yesterday. William Hague's office said the Tories would not breach the Salisbury Convention - the tradition under which the Lords does not wreck measures promised in the election manifesto of the governing party. But his spokesman insisted that the convention would not stop them "strongly opposing" the measure.

The Tories do not want to be seen to be defending the hereditaries, and they know that Mr Blair would love to portray them as ready to "die in the ditch" for preserving the influence enjoyed by the dukes, earls, viscounts, marquesses and barons.

The Opposition argues that the Government should not abolish the hereditaries until it spells out its long-term reform plans for the second chamber. Tory peers are expected to table a clever amendment to the Bill delaying its implementation until the commission has reported.

Just how far the Tories carry the fight will be the subject of delicate negotiations between Mr Hague and Lord Cranborne, the hereditary peer who is Opposition leader in the Lords.

"Obviously, no one is going to defend the hereditary principle in the second chamber," David Willetts, Tory education spokesman, said yesterday. "The important point is that what we do have is at least as independent [as now] if not more independent. What we need to see is that the second chamber is genuinely democratic."

Some Tory MPs believe Lord Cranborne is the wrong man to lead the battle against the telegenic Baroness Jay, the Leader of the Lords. Privately, they admit Mr Blair made a shrewd move when he sacked a surprised Lord Richard in July. "Otherwise the TV debates between the two party leaders in the Lords would have looked like two old men sitting in their gentlemen's club with brandy and cigars," said one Tory backbencher.

The rebellion could block the Bill in the current Parliamentary session, forcing the Government to bring it back in a year by invoking the Parliament Act which allows the Commons to override the Lords.

The length of the revolt could be decided by a handful of diehard hereditaries. The seventh Earl of Onslow, who has promised to behave like a football hooligan as he opposes the measure, said yesterday: "We have got to have a properly reformed chamber. We have got three questions to ask - its purpose, its powers and its composition."

Lord Moncreiff, 83, the fifth of a barony created in 1874, described the Government's proposals as "damn stupid, to put it bluntly". He admitted: "It will be a big wrench for the family."

Lord Moncreiff added: "All this talk about the House of Lords being old farts ... Why cannot hereditary peers age and grow old? I have been in the Lords since I was 27. It seems now they would like us to die off at the age of 50."