Tag Archives: hereditary peers by-elections

Labour’s removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords: 10 key questions answered

Posted on by

Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto promised to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Today, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has its second reading in the House of Commons. In this post, Constitution Unit Director and House of Lords expert Meg Russell explores 10 key questions about the bill and Labour’s policy. For example, who are the hereditary peers? How did they get into the House of Lords? How have they survived so long? And what effect will their departure have on the House of Lords? 

  1. How long have the hereditary peers been in the House of Lords? 

The history of the House of Lords is long and complex. It is an ancient institution, but has changed very substantially over the years. The roots of the chamber can be traced to bodies that were drawn together to advise the monarch as long ago as the medieval period. Individuals called to those early assemblies were powerful figures, including major landholders and representatives of the church. Around the 14th century they began meeting separately from others representing the people – so that parliament developed into two distinct chambers, which became the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Initially, there was no guarantee that an individual called to one meeting of the upper chamber would be called to the next. But membership gradually stabilised, and it became established that the members of the nobility who took seats would pass these down the family line along with their titles. By the 13th century the chamber included earls and barons, while the titles Duke and Marquess date to the 14th century 

Continue reading →

Who are the last hereditary peers? 

Posted on by

The Labour government has pledged to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords. With a bill to do so now in the Commons, Lisa James looks at the profiles of the sitting hereditary peers and asks how their removal might impact the second chamber. 

The remaining hereditary peers will soon be removed from the House of Lords. The reform featured in the Labour manifesto and the new government’s first King’s speech; a short bill has recently been introduced into the House of Commons and will be debated later in the autumn. It will see the remaining hereditary peers removed at the end of the current session of parliament. 

The reasons to remove the remaining hereditary peers include important normative ones, resting on the inappropriateness of hereditary status as a qualification to sit in parliament in a modern democracy. This normative argument is widely (if not universally) considered settled. Alongside principle sit political motives; the majority of hereditaries are Conservative (and only four are Labour). And in practical terms, their removal will reduce the size of the House, which is widely considered too large. This post focuses on the effects of the proposed change, asking how the removal of the hereditaries will affect the composition of the second chamber. 

Background 

The removal of the remaining hereditaries constitutes unfinished business from 25 years ago. For centuries the House of Lords was – excepting the bishops, and latterly the Law Lords – a hereditary body, with new peerages as a matter of course being created as hereditary titles. This changed in 1958, with the passage of the Life Peerages Act. Further fundamental reform followed in 1999, when Tony Blair’s Labour government removed the majority of hereditary peers from the chamber. The bill originally sought to remove all the hereditary peers, but this proved contentious in the Lords itself, and a compromise was brokered to allow it to pass. Thus 92 hereditary seats were retained (and a small number of other hereditary members were given life peerages). It is these final 92 seats which are now set to be abolished. 

The remaining hereditaries are, counterintuitively, the only elected members of the House of Lords. Three different systems operate, according to the compromise reached in 1999. Two seats are reserved for the holders of roles linked to the royal family; 15 are chosen in elections by the whole of the House of Lords; and the remaining 75 are elected by the sitting hereditaries within the relevant party group. Among the latter by-elections, there have famously sometimes been more candidates than voters. 

By-elections were paused via an amendment to the Standing Orders soon after this year’s King’s speech, in anticipation of the bill to remove the hereditaries, which was introduced to the Commons on 5 September. With a handful of seats currently vacant, there are now 88 hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords. 

Continue reading →

Parliamentary reform in the 2024 party manifestos 

Posted on by

The main party manifestos have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this second post in a series on the manifestos, Meg Russell looks at the parties’ commitments on parliamentary reform. What are they promising, and what are the prospects for these proposed changes? 

Yesterday on this blog, Lisa James reviewed the constitutional proposals presented by the political parties in their 2024 general election manifestos. Unsurprisingly, parliamentary reform is a key area that appears in several of them. Most parties include aspirations to reform the House of Lords, and some make other commitments on the House of Commons, or the overall power of parliament. This second post in the Constitution Unit’s manifesto series reviews these proposals, reflecting on their origins, merits, and prospects for implementation. It starts with the power of parliament as a whole, before moving to the Commons, and then the Lords. 

The power of parliament 

It is primarily the Liberal Democrats that give space to parliament’s overall place in the constitution – an area subject to significant recent controversy. The Brexit referendum of 2016 led to fierce clashes in parliament, and unusually high-profile arguments about both parliamentary procedure and the limits of the government’s prerogative power. Brexit also raised new questions about parliament’s powers over policy matters that returned to the UK following its exit from the European Union. 

Continue reading →

What should happen when MPs resign? Why the Commons should have control of the departure of its members and MPs should not be offered post-dated peerages

Posted on by

The resignation of Nadine Dorries prompted questions about how, and in what circumstances, an MP should leave office. In this post (the first of two), former senior House of Commons official David Natzler argues that it is wrong for the executive to have the final say over MPs’ departures, and that MPs should not be offered peerages until after they have left the Commons.

On 25 August the backbencher and former Cabinet minister Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, announced that she had formally applied for the position of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds. The appointment was duly made on 29 August and she ceased thereby to be a member of the House of Commons. The writ for a by-election was ordered when the Commons returned from its summer recess on 4 September, with delayed effect until 12 September: unlike the writ for Rutherglen and Hamilton West caused by the successful recall petition against Margaret Ferrier, which was ordered at the same sitting but with immediate effect. As a result, the by-election to replace Dorries will not be held until 19 October. This was in the news primarily because more than 10 weeks earlier, on 9 June, Dorries stated that she had informed the Conservative Chief Whip that she was ‘standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire with immediate effect’. That day saw the publication of the resignation honours list of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and both she and fellow Johnson loyalist Nigel Adams had been widely tipped to receive peerages. Neither did, apparently following doubts expressed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC). Johnson announced his resignation as an MP later on 9 June and was appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds on 12 June. Adams announced his resignation on 10 June – using identical words to Dorries about ‘standing down with immediate effect’ –  and was duly appointed as Steward of the Manor of Northstead on 13 June.

It soon became clear that Dorries had not actually resigned and that she had no immediate intention of doing so. On 14 June she said that it was still ‘absolutely my intention to resign’ but that she was awaiting information she had sought from the Cabinet Office and HOLAC on her non-appointment to the House of Lords. On 29 June she stated on her weekly TalkTV show that ‘I’ve resigned… I’ll be gone long before the next general election.’ Criticism mounted from Conservative MPs, and within her constituency, most conspicuously from first Flitwick and then Shefford town councils, both of whom published letters they had sent to her. These focused primarily on allegations that she was failing in her duties to her constituents, both in terms of her failure over a period of many months to speak or vote or attend the House of Commons, and of her refusal to hold constituency surgeries or play an active role in the constituency. Rishi Sunak suggested during an LBC radio interview on 2 August that her constituents were not being properly represented, and thereafter several ministers and backbench Conservatives were similarly critical. She continued however to receive the Conservative whip. And of course, she continued to receive her salary. 

Political drama aside, does this story hold any lessons for the way parliament and the constitution should function? I believe that it illustrates several issues, although they are not all capable of resolution: specifically, the grant of peerages to MPs; the practice and process used by MPs to resign their seats; the expectations of attendance of MPs at Westminster; and MPs’ work for and in their constituencies. The first two of these matters will be covered in this post. The latter two will be discussed in a post that will appear on this blog tomorrow.

Continue reading →

Why Labour should adopt a two-stage approach to House of Lords reform

Posted on by

Today the Constitution Unit publishes a report jointly with the Institute for Government and Bennett Institute on the options for House of Lords reform. Here, in the second of two posts summarising its conclusions, report author Meg Russell argues that if Labour wins the next election, it should pursue a two-stage approach. This would begin with immediate urgent changes to the appointments process and hereditary peers, while the party consulted on larger-scale proposals such as those set out in the Brown report.

Today the Constitution Unit publishes a new report, House of Lords reform: navigating the obstacles, jointly with the Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute at the University of Cambridge. This is the second of two posts summarising some of the report’s conclusions, with a particular focus on Labour’s options for Lords reform.

The previous post explored proposals from Labour’s commission chaired by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for an elected ‘Assembly of the Nations and Regions’. It suggested, on the basis of past UK and international experience, that large-scale reform of this kind will be difficult to achieve, and could not be actioned by Labour immediately. The Brown report leaves many open questions on which careful consultation and deliberation would be required. Meanwhile, there are clear problems with the House of Lords which are widely recognised, and would be relatively straightforward to deal with. This post focuses on such beneficial small-scale changes, including:

  • placing a limit on the size of the House of Lords
  • agreeing a formula for the sharing of seats
  • introducing greater quality control on appointments
  • removing the remaining hereditary peers.

More detailed consideration was given to the first three of these options in another recent post on this blog. Hence this one deals with them quite briefly, then draws the strands together, considering a possible strategy for the Labour Party on Lords reform if it comes to power.

Placing a limit on the size of the House of Lords

One of the most visible difficulties with the House of Lords is its growing size. Reform by Tony Blair’s government in 1999 removed most hereditary peers, slashing the chamber from more than 1,200 members to 666. But since then, its size has crept gradually upwards again. There was a net growth of around 70 members under Blair, and well over 100 under David Cameron – though Gordon Brown and Theresa May each presided over net reductions of around 30 members. Boris Johnson’s appointments were also excessive, and concern remains about his possible resignation honours list. Currently, the size of the House of Lords hovers around 800.

Continue reading →