The SNP has stepped up calls for peers convicted of a criminal offence to be thrown out of Parliament amid reports ministers are considering such a measure.
Politicians from across the political spectrum have complained that peers should not be allowed to keep their seats in the House of Lords if they have committed crimes.
There was outrage when Lord Watson, the ex-Labour peer, was allowed to remain a member of the Upper chamber despite serving time for fire raising. Other peers to have kept their titles include Lord Archer, who was jailed for perjury.
Critics of the current system also point out that MPs have to give up their seats in the House of Commons if sent to jail for more than a year.
It is thought the new measure could be included in the Queen's speech this year. Under the plans it is thought peers themselves would be given the power to expel members who have been convicted of a serious offence.
Proposals included in the draft House of Lords Reform Bill would allow convicted peers to be suspended.
However, pressure is growing for them to be expelled.
It has traditionally been difficult to remove peers from the House of Lords, in part to remain independent and immune from political pressure.
Pete Wishart, the SNP Constitutional Affairs spokesman, said the announcement last week Fred Goodwin, the ex-RBS boss, had been stripped of his knighthood had shone a light on the conduct of those given Honours.
"It is ridiculous that peers, convicted and imprisoned for serious criminal offences can retain, not just their title, but their seat and privileges in the House of Lords," he said.
"In circumstances where an MP would be disqualified and lose their seat, for Lords it really is a case of one law for them and another for the rest of us."
Lord Watson was expelled by the Labour party seven years ago after his conviction, but remains a member of the House of Lords.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article