Alan Sugar blasted for not turning up to House of Lords in hereditary peers row:  Tory leader attacks move to kick out some of the hardest working while laggards and no-shows like Apprentice host remain

Alan Sugar was criticised by a leading member of the House of Lords today, who criticised his poor attendance in a row over the role of hereditary peers. 

Tory shadow Lords leader Lord True singled out the Apprentice host as peers discussed plans to axe the 92 seats reserved for members on the basis of their ancestry.

Lord True said the result of the  House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has been through the Commons, would be that it lost some of the best and hardest working peers while clinging to the laggards and the no-shows.

Turning his fire on Lord Sugar, who was en-nobled in 2009 by then PM Gordon Brown, the Tory peer said: The blunt message that this Bill sends out to 88 of our number is as Lord Sugar put it is Youre fired.

I wonder by the way how often Lord Sugar comes here?

The Apprentice star has faced criticism over his long-running failure to take part in proceedings.

In September he was sworn in to take part in the new parliament - the first time he had spoken in the Lords for six years. 

As he was being sworn in, former Labour minister Lord Foulkes of Cumnock pointed across the floor of the chamber and shouted: Youre fired!

The Apprentice star has faced criticism over his long-running failure to take part in proceedings.

Turning his fire on Lord Sugar, who was en-nobled in 2009 by then PM Gordon Brown, the Tory peer said: The blunt message that this Bill sends out to 88 of our number is as Lord Sugar put it is Youre fired. I wonder by the way how often Lord Sugar comes here?

The bill will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth.

There are currently 88 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation.

The Bill delivers on a promise in Labours election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform.

There have been concerns about the size of the House and calls to reduce its membership, which stands at around 800, compared with MPs, who are capped at 650 members.

A commitment to introduce a participation requirement and mandatory retirement age of 80 were not included in the Governments current legislative plans.

Under current rules, peers do not need to take part in proceedings to claim the daily attendance allowance of £361 and up to £100 for overnight stays plus travel expenses.

It has fuelled claims some use it as a glorified members club at taxpayers expense.

Recently criticism has been levelled at peers who rarely show up.  

Last month Ian Botham was accused of not doing enough in the House of Lords because he is in Australia all the time making money from foot massagers.

The crossbenchers record was questioned by a senior Labour peer during a debate on reforming the unelected chamber. 

Lord Botham was made a life peer in 2020 after being nominated by former prime minister Boris Johnson, and was also appointed a trade envoy to Australia – an interest that ceased in July this year.

According to the parliamentary record, he has only spoken twice in the chamber, the last time in November 2020, and has not voted since July 2021.

Last month Ian Botham was accused of not doing enough in the House of Lords because he is in Australia all the time making money from foot massagers.

During the last four years he has tabled a total of five written questions, of which three were in the last month. Two of them related to the imposition of VAT on private schools by the new Labour government.

In October, when the Lords was sitting, he was in Australia, fishing in the Northern Territory with his former Ashes adversary Merv Hughes - and fell into shark and crocodile-infested waters.

He was also part of the commentary team for Melbourne-based radio station Triple Ms coverage of the test series between Australia and India in November.

Earlier, opening the debate, leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said: There are those who argue that no reform should take place until everything is agreed. But with no agreement on what everything should entail, nothing gets done, and this has created a track record of stagnation and stalled attempts at reform.

In this case taking a staged approach represents the best and most practical way forward and is entirely in line with the manifesto commitments.

To continue to assert that wider reforms must be implemented alongside this Bill is a wilful misinterpretation of the manifesto.

She pointed out that even after the removal of the hereditary peers, the Conservatives would remain the largest party in the House.

But Lord True said: This will be a fiercely contested Bill. Not for its declared objective that no more hereditary peers will come here… but frankly for the Bills sheer inadequacy. The Bill is defective not just for what is in it but for what it fails to address.

He argued one of the justifications for the move was more Keir Hardie than Keir Starmer and was an outdated class warrior one.

Lord True added: What I do reject is the idea that if one wants to reduce numbers the masterplan is to find some of the best and hardest working among us and kick them out while clinging to the laggards and the no-shows. No rational institution would do that.