‘It’s a smash and grab raid on the constitution’: The last of the hereditary peers

Published

3 days ago

January 2, 2025

admin

For centuries an odd tradition lay dormant in our democracy.

A number of nobleman have had the chance to sit in parliament, simply by birthright – 92 seats in the House of Lords are eligible to male heirs in specific families and 88 men have taken these seats and currently sit in the second chamber to vote on legislation.

It is not known exactly when this quirk in our parliamentary system started but Sir Keir Starmer‘s government is trying to end it.

The prime minister has said that the right to sit in the second chamber bestowed at birth is an “indefensible” principle and his government have started the process to end hereditary peers for good.

It will mean that those with hereditary peerages will have to be part of the process that gets them voted out of a job they had previously been entitled to for the rest of their life.

The last of the hereditaries

We meet the Earl of Devon who has one of the oldest hereditary peerages.

He can trace his family title back to the Saxons, but the right to sit in the House of Lords came much later – he says granted in 1142 for supporting the first female sovereign, Empress Matilda.

He is the 38th Earl of Devon since then and the last to sit in the Lords as a hereditary.

His castle in Devon places him in touch with the community he represents – it is one of the main reasons he feels strongly that he adds value to parliament.

He argues he and his peers bring a certain life experience with them that the political appointees do not.

He says there is a greater regional representation within the UK and he has a deeper understanding of the historical constitutional workings of parliament that comes from passing knowledge from generation to generation.

“I certainly feel that the role that the hereditary peers play in the House of Lords is exemplary,” he says.

He greatly defends the idea of service that he and his peers strive for but he also says there is a social purpose and social value to the hereditary principle as the monarch is the epitome of it.

“I don’t think that Keir Starmer is a republican but it does beg the question of once the hereditaries go is the king next,” he says.

By contrast, Lord Strathclyde has one of the newest hereditary peerages.

He has not only participated fully as a member of the Lords but also served in previous Conservative governments in senior roles.

He believes this latest intervention by the government is a purely political move.

“I think the real reason why the government wants to get rid of them is because most of them are not members of the Labour Party,” he says.

“So it’s a smash and grab raid on the constitution. Get rid of your opponents and allow the prime minister to control who entered the House of Lords.

“I can guarantee you that once this bill is through and becomes law, there will be no further reform of the House of Lords no matter what ministers say.”

It is true that over half of hereditary peers are Conservatives and astonishingly few are Labour – there are only four.

But removing the hereditaries doesn’t change the composition of the Lords all that much.

The Lords is 70% men, which would only drop 3% once these peers are removed, and the percentage of Conservative peers overall in the house only drops by 2% if all the hereditaries leave overnight.

Broader Reform

Reform has been talked about since the 1700s when there was an attempt to cap the size of the swollen chamber now at more than 800 members.

But despite successive governments promising reform, the House has only got larger.

Hereditary peers have long maintained that once the government passes this first stage of reform they will be less motivated by other opportunities to modernise the second chamber.

In 1999, Blair culled the amount of hereditary peerages (having previously promised to get rid of them all).

While 650 departed, a deal was struck for 92 to remain with replacements when these peers died or retired and filled by a bizarre system of byelections, where the only eligible candidates were hereditary peers.

The current leader of the Lords, Baroness Smith, says the elections are a bizarre, almost shameful part of our democracy and compares them to the Dunny-on-the-Wold in Blackadder where there is only one eligible voter in the entire constituency.

While the government’s aim to abolish these peerages has finally stepped up a gear, it is also true that Labour has watered down promises on broader reform in the Lords.

Pre-election, it had floated the idea of abolishing the second chamber altogether.

In the manifesto the party modified that to instead reducing the scale of the Lords through a retirement age, but that was not in the King’s speech and no timeline for those objectives has been given by the government.

Baroness Smith insists these are still commitments and the government is currently looking at how to implement them, though it does seem to be moving at a much slower pace than this first stage of removing the hereditary peers who, it seems, will hang up their ancient robes for good at the end of this parliamentary session.

Politics

Parliament urged to begin mandatory DBS criminal record checks on new MPs and peers

Published

22 hours ago

January 4, 2025

admin

Parliament urged to begin mandatory DBS criminal record checks on new MPs and peers

MPs and peers could be forced to submit to criminal record checks under proposals submitted by a new Labour MP.

In a letter seen by Sky News, Jo White urged the leader of the Commons to examine whether a new committee set up to modernise parliament should force all new members to have checks due to their access to young and vulnerable people.

She suggests in-depth background checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service – commonly known as DBS checks – as the initial stages of introducing MPs to parliament.

Candidates are currently banned from running to be an MP if they have been jailed for more than a year in the UK.

However, there is no requirement for DBS checks, something most other jobs require when applying for positions working with vulnerable people.

Ms White previously submitted an early-day motion on this issue, with cross-party signatures including 13 other Labour MPs supporting her motion.

In her letter to the committee, the Bassetlaw MP writes: “It is a privilege that, as parliamentarians, we can work with local schools, care homes and hospitals, but we must be proactive in preserving this trust.

“Implementing a mandatory check would protect both the people we visit and ourselves. It would be key to maintaining public trust and high workplace standards across the estate and in our constituencies.”

DBS checks are standard practices for GPs, nurses, teachers and other professions. They let potential employers know if a candidate has a criminal record or is banned from working with children or vulnerable adults.

Many local authorities already run DBS checks on elected officials but it’s not standard practice in parliament.

Prospective MPs can stand for election despite having a criminal record or appearing on the child-barred list or adult-barred list unless they have served a prison term over 12 months.

In fact, they do not need to disclose any criminal behaviour to the public prior to becoming a candidate.

The main vetting process before entering the House of Commons is done through political parties, who set their own rules for carrying out any such checks.

None of the Reform UK MPs have signed the early-day motion and leader Nigel Farage said last election there was “no vetting” of candidates.

This has already caused some controversy.

One Reform MP, James McMurdock, was jailed 19 years ago for repeatedly kicking his then girlfriend, according to court documents disclosed by The Times.

The South Basildon and East Thurrock MP attacked her in 2006 while drunk outside a nightclub and spent 21 days in a young offenders’ institution.

He had not publicly disclosed the conviction and described it as a “teenage indiscretion” when asked about the incident last year.

Under new rules, new MPs might have to fully disclose their criminal past.

The creation of a modernisation committee was a Labour manifesto promise and now sits as a cross-party group tasked with reforming House of Commons procedures and improving standards.

The committee said it would not be commenting on submissions until it’s had time to fully consider all options, but is due to publish an initial report early this year.

Politics

Nigel Farage rejects Tommy Robinson after support from Elon Musk

Published

22 hours ago

January 4, 2025

admin

Nigel Farage rejects Tommy Robinson after support from Elon Musk

Nigel Farage has said Tommy Robinson “won’t be” joining Reform UK after Elon Musk showed support for the jailed far-right activist on social media.

The billionaire owner of X, who has spoken positively about Reform UK and is reportedly considering making a donation to the party, has been critical of the government’s handling of child sexual exploitation across a number of towns and cities more than a decade ago.

While the Reform UK leader described the billionaire owner of X as “an absolute hero figure, particularly to young people in this country”, he distanced himself and his party from Robinson, who is currently serving an 18-month prison sentence for contempt of court.

Mr Musk endorsed the far-right activist and claimed Robinson was “telling the truth” about grooming gangs, writing on X: “Free Tommy Robinson”.

Speaking to broadcasters ahead of the start of Reform UK’s East Midlands Conference tonight, party leader Mr Farage did not directly address Mr Musk’s comments, but said: “He has a whole range of opinions, some of which I agree with very strongly, and others of which I’m more reticent about.”

He went on to say that having Mr Musk’s support is “very helpful to our cause”, describing him as “an absolute hero figure, particularly to young people in this country”.

He continued: “Everyone says, well, what about his comments on Tommy Robinson? Look, my position is perfectly clear on that. I never wanted Tommy Robinson to join UKIP, I don’t want him to join Reform UK, and he won’t be.”

Later on GB News, Mr Farage added that Mr Musk “sees Robinson as one of these people that fought against the grooming gangs”.

“But of course the truth is Tommy Robinson’s in prison not for that, but for contempt of court,” he said.

Mr Farage added: “We’re a political party aiming to win the next general election. He’s not what we need.”

How did Elon Musk become involved?

The online campaign from Mr Musk began after it emerged that Home Office minister Jess Phillips had denied requests from Oldham Council to lead a public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in the borough, as the Conservatives had done in 2022.

In a letter to the authority in Greater Manchester, Ms Phillips said she believes it is “for Oldham Council alone to decide to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the government to intervene”.

An Oldham Council spokesman previously said: “Survivors sit at the heart of our work to end child sexual exploitation. Whatever happens in terms of future inquiries, we have promised them that their wishes will be paramount, and we will not renege on that pledge.”

Mr Musk posted on X multiple times about the scandal, and claimed Sir Keir Starmer had failed to bring “rape gangs” to justice when he led the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In 2013, Sir Keir introduced new guidelines for how child sexual abuse victims should be treated and how a case should be built and presented in court.

The SpaceX and Tesla boss also endorsed posts about Robinson.

Robinson, who is 42 years old and whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, admitted at Woolwich Crown Court in October to breaching an injunction banning him from repeating libellous allegations against a Syrian refugee schoolboy, after he was successfully sued for libel in 2021.