By Ned Simons - 15th March 2011
When does life mean life? It may not mean it for prisoners yet it has done for membership of the House of Lords. But not for much longer if the coalition has its way.
In fact not only have life peers been assured a seat on the red benches until they die they have been prevented from staging a jail-break even if they wanted to, as they are simply banned from retiring.
Yesterday peers heard that the coalition plans to appoint 86 more Conservative and 99 more Liberal Democrat life peers to the House of Lords to make the chamber "reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election".
But if ministers successfully pilot through their plan to create a "wholly or partially" elected second chamber then how long will they get to keep their new jobs for?
Job security was perhaps on the mind of Lord Grocott today, himself a Labour life peer, when he rose in the House of Lords to ask the government about its plans to kick out the peers and potentially replace them with elected senators.
Lord Strathcylde, the Conservative leader of the Lords and one of the few remaining hereditary peers, assured him that he had "no plans to remove peerages from those in receipt of that’ honour".
This came as a great relief to Grocott who said the answer left him "almost at a loss for words" he was so pleased.
"He's actually saying everyone saying currently a life peer will remain a peer for life?" he asked.
Strathclyde repeated that "a peerage is for life that honour should remain". But the sighs of relief had barely been breathed before he ruined it by adding "but it shouldn't necessarily guarantee a seat in the House of Lords".
On hearing this the newly ennobled Tory Lord Cormack stood, clearly troubled that his new life might be cut short by that sneaky Nick Clegg.
He said his "right sit here for life" had been granted to him by the Queen. "Are we to attach more importance to letters of patent from Queen or the views of the temporary deputy prime minister".
Strathclyde said Parliament had been through that argument before in 1999 when it removed most hereditary peers (Strathclyde survived the cull)
"I don’t believe that any new member of this House has, before accepting this great honour and job, not considered what might happen in the future," he said.
And he rejected the suggestion from the Labour front bench that government plans to appoint more coalition peers meant they were not confident of getting rid of the unelected chamber.
Yesterday peers raised concerns that a new British Senate would challenge the supremacy of the Commons.
Today it may have dawned on even more of them that in future they may have to do the challenging from beyond the dead – metaphorically speaking of course.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.