See also the Explanatory Notes (pdf)
The Bill seeks to implement a Labour Party manifesto commitment to remove 'the remaining connection between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords; to abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to claims to hereditary peerages ..'
The majority of hereditary peers were excluded from the House of Lords by the House of Lords Act 1999 (legislation.gov.uk) but a compromise was reached and section 2 of that Act provided for 90 such peers to continue as members. In addition the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain were excepted.
The Bill states
 |
In modern times. claims to hereditary peerages are rare and the Bill will abolish the ancient jurisdiction of the House of Lords over such claims.
If any claims arise
in future they will be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.In 2016 the Judicial Committee ruled on a baronetcy - see Law and Lawyers: The Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill ~ Reference under Judicial Committee Act 1833 s.4 (obiterj.blogspot.com)
The Labour Party manifesto
Change Labour Party Manifesto 2024
The manifesto stated that Labour recognised 'the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament.' Nonetheless, reform was both 'long over-due and essential.' and 'Hereditary peers remain indefensible.'
The manifesto went further and stated -
'Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords. Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them, and we will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed. We will reform the the quality of new appointments and will seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber. Whilst this action to modernise the House of Lords will be an improvement, Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.'
The fact that removal of hereditary peers was included in the manifesto may be of importance given the Salisbury-Addison convention that the House of Lords will not oppose second or third reading of government Bills seeking to implement manifesto commitments.
Comment
Those hereditary peers who now sit in the House of Lords are the last of a long history of entitlement based on birth. Those who sit are chosen by the hereditary peerage itself and not by the electorate as a whole. That is why they are viewed as 'indefensible' but are they any more 'indefensible' than those life peers nominated by Prime Ministers for reasons that are largely unclear to the public?
Furthermore, the hereditary peers do not owe their membership to any politician or political party and, as such, they can claim to be truly independent from the government of the day with its dominance of much of parliamentary business.
It is also noteworthy that due to Clause 4 of the Bill, any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament will have no effect after the end of the Session in which the Act is passed. It is not clear, at least not to me, why they have to be excluded prior to the actual end of the current Parliament. I have my suspicions but best to wait and see what happens! It seems unprincipled to remove a bloc of sitting members from a Parliament during the existence of that Parliament.
What of the other changes included in the Labour manifesto - e.g. retirement at age 80. It may be that some of those do not require legislation for implementation but this is not explained.
Detailed proposals have yet to appear about how 'disgraced members' can be removed or how the 'quality of new appointments' will be reformed or how the 'national and regional balance' will be improved.
The proposed consultation on an alternative second chamber is awaited.
The Bill will of course reduce the size of the Lords by 92 members but will they then be replaced by appointees? Again, there is silence from government. A major criticism of the House of Lords is the size of its membership. Once an individual is a member, there is entitlement to membership for life. Maybe in any future reforms, thought should be given to limiting the right to attendance to a small number of Parliaments. As things stand, someone could be appointed to a life peerage in their 20s and still be attending the Lords some 60 to 70 years later! Lord Oranmore and Browne was a member from 1927 to 1999. He died in 2002. - Oldest peer and longest-serving member of the Lords – The Irish Times.
For the impact of the legislation on claims to Irish peerages, see the Explanatory Notes. The fact that any jurisdiction remains in relation to peerages of an entirely independent nation is only explicable by history!
Media and other
The last of the hereditary Lords – but will they be missed? – Channel 4 News
No comments:
Post a Comment