‘It’s a smash and grab raid on the constitution’: The last of the hereditary peers
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.
Powderham Castle in Devon
The Earl of Devon can trace his family back to the Saxons
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.
Baron Strathclyde is one of the newer heriditaries
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.”
The Earl of Devon
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.
Baroness Smith
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
Concessions to welfare reforms to be revealed after Labour backbench rebellion forces government retreat
Changes to welfare reforms, forced on the government by rebel Labour MPs, are being revealed today ahead of a crucial vote.
The original bill restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (pip) and cut the health-related element of universal credit (UC).
The government, which insisted welfare costs were becoming unsustainable, was forced into a U-turn after 126 Labour backbenchers signed an amendment that would have halted the bill at its first Commons hurdle.
Explainer: What are the welfare concessions?
While the amendment is expected to be withdrawn, after changes that appeased some Labour MPs, others are still unhappy and considering backing a similar amendment to be tabled today.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Starmer defends welfare U-turn
Here are the main changes to the UC and pip bill:
• current pip claimants will keep their benefits; stricter eligibility requirements will only apply to new claims from November 2026
• a review of the pip assessment, which will have input from disabled people
• existing recipients of the health-related element of UC will have their incomes protected in real terms
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said in a statement that the legislation now aims to deliver a “fairer, more compassionate system” ahead of the second reading and vote on Tuesday.
“We must build a welfare system that provides security for those who cannot work and the right support for those who can. Too often, disabled people feel trapped, worried that if they try to work, they could lose the support they depend on.
“That is why we are taking action to remove those barriers, support disabled people to live with dignity and independence, and open routes into employment for those who want to pursue it.
“This is about delivering a fairer, more compassionate system as part of our Plan for Change which supports people to thrive, whatever their circumstances.”
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall insists welfare reforms will create ‘a fairer, more compassionate system’. Pic: PA
On Saturday, Sir Keir Starmer said fixing the UK’s welfare system was a “moral imperative”. The government claimed cuts to sickness and disability benefits would shave £5bn off the welfare bill and get more people into work.
The Resolution Foundation believes the concessions could cost as much as £3bn, while the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the changes make tax rises more likely.
Read more:
Starmer’s most damaging U-turn yet
Liz Kendall defends welfare retreat
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈
Health Secretary Wes Streeting told Sky News that welfare bill changes have put Labour in a much better position ahead of tomorrow’s vote.
On Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, Mr Streeting said: “There were things that we didn’t get right, we’ve put right, and there’ll be a debate about future amendments and things, I’m sure, as it goes through in the usual way.”
Talking to Sky News about the welfare reforms, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said there were things Labour ‘didn’t get right’
On the same programme, shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately repeatedly refused to say whether the Conservatives would back the bill, but would review the proposals after the minister’s statement later.
“We have said that if there are more savings that actually bring the welfare bill down, if they’ll get more people into work, and if they commit to using the savings to avoid tax cuts in the autumn, which looks highly unlikely at the moment, then they have our support.”
The Liberal Democrats plan to vote against the bill and have called for the government to speed up access-to-work decisions to help people enter the workforce.
Wes Streeting has suggested he is confident the government will now win a crunch vote on welfare cuts after Sir Keir Starmer made a number of concessions to prevent a damaging rebellion.
The health secretary told Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips the alterations to the controversial welfare bill meant those in receipt of benefits now had “peace of mind”.
Asked whether he was confident the government would now win a vote on the reforms scheduled for Tuesday, Mr Streeting said: “Yes.
“I think the changes that were made this week have put us in a much better position, not just on the vote on Tuesday, but on the substance of the package – because as a result of the changes, it means anyone watching this morning who’s in receipt of PIP, Personal Independence Payments, now has the peace of mind of knowing that their situation is protected.”
It comes after the prime minister carried out the most significant U-turn of his premiership at the end of the week in order to quell a growing rebellion over his welfare package.
More than 120 Labour MPs had signalled they were prepared to vote down the bill next week after they signed an amendment that would have stopped its progress through parliament – citing concerns about the impact on the most vulnerable and the lack of proper consultation with disabled groups.
The scale of the rebellion – and the fact it spanned all wings of the party – alarmed Downing Street and led to Sir Keir making a number of changes to diffuse the anger.
Originally, the bill set out to tighten the eligibility criteria for PIP – money that is given to people, some of whom are in work, who have extra care or mobility needs as a result of a disability.
People who claim it are awarded points depending on their ability to do certain activities, such as washing and preparing food, which influences how much they will receive.
Currently claimants need to score a minimum of eight points across a range of tasks to qualify for the daily living element (there is a mobility element that is not affected by the plans). Under the new rules people will need to score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify.
However, the changes made by Sir Keir mean existing PIP claimants will now be exempted from the stricter new criteria.
Alterations to Universal Credit, another type of benefit, mean that the health top-up will only be cut and frozen for new applications, as opposed to existing ones.
Read more:
What are the concessions to the welfare bill – and will MPs back it?
Welfare has been Starmer’s most damaging U-turn yet
Mr Streeting declined to say whether he thought those who decide to vote against the bill should lose the party whip, which would force them to sit as an independent MP in the Commons.
He said it was “not my decision”, but added that there was an “expectation that Labour MPs vote for the whip”.
In a series of interviews over the weekend, the prime minister acknowledged there had been some mishandling of the welfare debate and said he was “heavily focused” on world affairs before he was forced to U-turn on his welfare bill.
In a piece in The Sunday Times, Sir Keir said he was occupied with the G7 and NATO summits and the escalating tensions in the Middle East for much of the past two weeks.
“Getting it right is more important than ploughing on with a package which doesn’t necessarily achieve the desired outcome,” he said, adding that all the decisions made were his and that “I take ownership of them”.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike