The End of Hereditary Peers and the Future of the House of Lords
Well, they listened. Almost a month ago I wrote that the House of Lords need not be replaced but revamped to be “fit for the new age we are tumbling into”. Just days ago the ministers introduced a bill to finally rid the upper chamber of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, completing the final act of this prolonged and painful drama for us watching.
It’s no secret that I have an obsession with the House of Lords; in my opinion, the biggest constitutional question – I had been in mind to say ‘biggest constitutional question of our age’, but over 140 years ago the first working-class MP to become a minister, trade unionist and stonemason Henry Broadhurst, said “There are few things more certain of accomplishment by the new Parliament than the abolition of hereditary right to legislation” in 1885. So, this question has been occupying Britain’s mind for quite some time.
In my last piece on the Lords, I said that we need not create another House of Commons, as Michael Heseltine warned we’d be doing if we sought to make the upper chamber and elected body. Many, however, think this is the answer, as the removal of all hereditary peers from the House of Lords, is, in their opinion, only knocking on the door of reform, and thatthe endurance of an unelected house of legislature is unacceptable in a 21st century democracy. The Electoral Reform Society is perhaps one of the biggest voices in this choir, advocating that the Lords be replaced by a smaller, elected chamber – i.e., another House of Commons. Of course, their main grievance is that life peers are elevated to the peerage at the behest of the prime minister, and are usually former prime ministers, meaning the proposed removal of hereditary peerage is not an answer to the ills of cronyism in the Lords.
Lord Tom Strathclyde has voiced his opposition to the bill, claiming that it would do “nothing to improve the workings of the House”. Of course, leaving appointments to the House of Lords solely within the control of the PM is an ugly business, but not nearly as ugly as allowing 92 hereditary peers – all of them white men with an average ag of just below 70 – to continue to enjoy a birth right to positions of power and influence over the law of the land.
I’ve given great credit to the 1958 Life Peerages Act for giving us a House of Lords that does not look so distant fromthe peoples it helps govern, infusing “new blood”, from lawyers to GPs, into the upper chamber. Whilst I certainly don’t trust that appointments made by the prime minister would be the best answer to the question of the Lords, I can say for sure that I’d prefer that to those whose life experience, as earls, dukes, and barons, is so far removed from the people over whom they legislate.
Until such a time that a new method for elevating life peers to the upper chamber is found, removing hereditary peers is the next best reform and partial answer to this great constitutional question of ours.
Besides, despite the circumstances surrounding how they gain their titles, life peers actually bring a lot more to the House of Lords than they take out. Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, for example, brings extraordinary values as a teacher and a trailblazer in crime prevention. Baroness Bennett (who I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, and working for), graces the House of Lords as a former leader of the Green Party, councillor, and widely published journalist. Pounding out the details, the House of Lords is not as bad as is made out to bebut in the public eye details seldom matter, readers and watchers prefer it black and white: unelected vs elected, not unelected but extremely good at analysing and scrutinising legislation due to gradual reform vs elected but not so good at analysing and scrutinising legislation due to power-grabbing and the theatre of politics. Not so catchy or headline-fetching,is it?
Michael Heseltine did summarise the Lords extremely well when he said that “you couldn’t invent the House of Lords. It’s an anachronism”. As I’ve mentioned time and again, the United Kingdom is complicated, but reforms can be made, as long as we are in possession of all the facts and understand what it is we are trying to reform.
Andrew Roberts quotes the father of conservatism Edmund Burke in the Daily Mail that society is a “partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”. A great thinker who, deservedly, is held in high regard by scholars and parliamentarians alike, has perhaps offered the best defence of some of the anachronisms that dominate our politics. Roberts certainly takes heed of this:
Through their descendants, the House of Lords is populated by the shades and spirits of many of the greatest Britons of history.
Yes, Britain’s history is great, complex, and troubling, and as a student of both history and politics I can confirm that we consult books, academics, and archaeology, not hereditary peers, when we want a reminder of parts of our history. Charles Wellesley, the 9th Duke of Wellington, should not be entitled to sit in one of our houses of legislature just because of the victories and legacy of his ancestor, the 1st Duke.
Yes, unfortunately, I fail to see how being old or related to an important figure in history is a prerequisite for public life and playing a role in our law-making. Radical, I know.
Nevertheless, the House of Lords will keep ticking along a lot longer than it’s hereditary peers it seems (both literally and metaphorically – which is a start on cutting away some of the rotting wood which remains in the roots of our public institutions.
Archie Rankin is a Fellow at the Sixteenth Council
