Latest news with #HereditaryPeers
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Route to ignominy': Hereditary Lords on prospect of leaving parliament
Imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1538 waiting to be executed, Henry Courtenay, the Earl of Devon, wrote on his cell walls words which would become his family's motto - "Where have I fallen, what have I done?" Nearly 500 years later, another Earl of Devon, is once again contemplating getting the chop. Charlie Courtenay, the 19th or 38th Earl of Devon, depending on how you count it, is one of the 87 remaining hereditary peers who will be kicked out of the House of Lords this year, if the government's House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill passes. He is fairly relaxed about his impending departure. Henry Courtenay's beheading was one of four the family has suffered, so for the current Earl of Devon "executions" - as he puts it - are nothing new. "For us hereditaries, that's what happens." For hundreds of years, hereditary peers had the right to make and debate laws in Parliament, a right they inherited from their fathers and passed on to their sons. In 1999, then Prime Minister Tony Blair described their presence in the House of Lords as an "anachronism" and got rid of more than 600 of them but, following what was supposed to be a temporary compromise, 92 were saved. Twenty-five years on, a new Labour government has come to power and is hoping to get rid of the ones who remain. The BBC has spoken to four of those peers preparing to pack up their parliamentary desks. Charlie Courtenay is happy to talk about his family's long history but growing up he felt uncomfortable about his privileged background. "It's obviously awkward and embarrassing on a personal front. Particularly it doesn't help if you live in a castle - you feel a bit like the odd one out." "I moved away from England for ten years and lived in America, where it suddenly became a lot easier. "By moving to America, where the response was 'gee, that's really interesting, tell me more', I learnt to talk about it with a bit more confidence." His distant ancestor, Baldwin de Redvers was given the title in 1142 a reward for backing Empress Matilda's right to the throne. He inherited it following his father's death in 2015, and began to think more deeply about what it meant to be an earl. His father had been kicked out of the House of Lords in the 1999 cull but his son was able to return via a by-election process, by which hereditaries who have died can be replaced by others from the same political grouping. He says he remembers thinking "here's a nice opportunity to provide a Devon voice in Westminster which is exactly the job Baldwin was given 900 years ago." The Earl of Devon is what he calls an "unashamed" proponent of hereditary peers. "I am the one person who defends the indefensible," he jokes. He argues that, at a time of concern about the "rabid consumption of our natural world" hereditaries offer a "long-term, multi-generational view" and are less likely to be focused on short term political gains. With his remaining months, he is hoping to, if not change the law, then get some support for his amendment to remove what he calls "the patriarchal, misogynistic" rules that bar women from inheriting most titles. "I find it faintly, totally ridiculous, embarrassing and wrong that my sisters and my aunt or my daughter can't inherit the title." Whether or not his amendments are accepted, it is all but certain that his children will not get the chance to sit in the Lords based on the title alone - a fact the earl is more than resigned to. "The big time for the Courtenay family was around 1100. Ever since then it's been a kind of slight gentle winding down of glories. "This is just another step on the route to ignominy." "I will not miss commuting 672 miles there and back every week," says Lord Thurso, a Liberal Democrat peer. He lives in Thurso, a town which is on the north coast of Scotland and about as far from the Lords as you can be without getting on a boat. He has no problem with hereditary peers getting the boot ("the idea we have some unique quality is laughable," he says) but doubts it will make much difference. "This is another sticking plaster over something that really needs to be dealt with." He says the Lords have good debates and scrutinise the government's plans "extremely well" but "does it actually get us anywhere? It doesn't." To have influence with the government, the Lords needs legitimacy, he says. "A house full of largely retired MPs put out to grass for 30 or 40 years or people like me who inherited it because their grandfather was cabinet secretary? That's no way to put together a second chamber." In 2012, he worked on a doomed plan that would have seen the Lords made up of a combination of elected and appointed peers. He says there is not "cat in hell's chance" of the government making any further changes once the current bill is passed. He wants to see ministers use the legislation to make other changes including a 20 year term limit for new peers and a restriction on the size of the house. "If you've got those two, well, then we can wait another 100 years or so for democracy," he sighs. Lord Howe inherited his title from a son-less second cousin in 1984, along with Penn House, a stately Buckinghamshire home. "My wife and I lived in a small terrace house in London. She was a teacher. I was working in bank. "All of a sudden I had a call to say I'd inherited the title. "It was a shock to the system - particularly when you arrive on a dark January evening, the front door creaks open and there is a butler saying 'Welcome home your Lordship'. And it didn't feel like home at all." The heating bill cost more than his annual salary, he remembers. Just a few years after becoming a peer, he was made a minister by then Conservative prime minister John Major ("Must have been scraping the barrel," he says). He's been on the front bench of his party ever since in various roles. Nearly 40 years on, his enthusiasm for the Lords has not diminished. "I love the place. I've found it very fulfilling. And just occasionally you feel that you've done a little bit of good." Lord Hacking is a rare thing - a Labour hereditary peer. There are only four of his kind, a fact that partly explains the government's enthusiasm to get rid of hereditaries. He got the title in 1971, but never expected to stay so long. He assumed hereditary peers would soon be removed and decided that once kicked out he could run to be an MP. "It didn't quite work out like," he says. "A bad political misjudgement." "I remained in the House of Lords until 1999 when I was 62 and that was a bit late then to think about getting into the House of Commons. He backs his party's position on hereditary peers but not without regret. "I wouldn't say I'm happy to get rid of them. I'm sad but I think what will happen... is that the very best of the hereditary peers will be invited to have a life peerage. "I'm sure there will be a compromise. We always compromise out of situations in England." You can listen to the interviews on BBC Radio 4's The Westminster Hour on BBC Sounds Diversity needed in House of Lords says new peer Peer criticises 'crude' House of Lord reform plans Who is Black Rod and what do they do in Parliament?
BBC News
20-04-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Tears for peers: Hereditary Lords face up to extinction
Imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1538 waiting to be executed, Henry Courtenay, the Earl of Devon, wrote on his cell walls words which would become his family's motto - "Where have I fallen, what have I done?"Nearly 500 years later, another Earl of Devon, is once again contemplating getting the chop. Charlie Courtenay, the 19th or 38th Earl of Devon, depending on how you count it, is one of the 87 remaining hereditary peers who will be kicked out of the House of Lords this year, if the government's House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill passes. He is fairly relaxed about his impending departure. Henry Courtenay's beheading was one of four the family has suffered, so for the current Earl of Devon "executions" - as he puts it - are nothing new. "For us hereditaries, that's what happens." For hundreds of years, hereditary peers had the right to make and debate laws in Parliament, a right they inherited from their fathers and passed on to their sons. In 1999, then Prime Minister Tony Blair described their presence in the House of Lords as an "anachronism" and got rid of more than 600 of them but, following what was supposed to be a temporary compromise, 92 were years on, a new Labour government has come to power and is hoping to get rid of the ones who BBC has spoken to four of those peers preparing to pack up their parliamentary desks. 'Awkward and embarrassing' Charlie Courtenay is happy to talk about his family's long history but growing up he felt uncomfortable about his privileged background. "It's obviously awkward and embarrassing on a personal front. Particularly it doesn't help if you live in a castle - you feel a bit like the odd one out.""I moved away from England for ten years and lived in America, where it suddenly became a lot easier. "By moving to America, where the response was 'gee, that's really interesting, tell me more', I learnt to talk about it with a bit more confidence."His distant ancestor, Baldwin de Redvers was given the title in 1142 a reward for backing Empress Matilda's right to the inherited it following his father's death in 2015, and began to think more deeply about what it meant to be an earl. His father had been kicked out of the House of Lords in the 1999 cull but his son was able to return via a by-election process, by which hereditaries who have died can be replaced by others from the same political grouping. He says he remembers thinking "here's a nice opportunity to provide a Devon voice in Westminster which is exactly the job Baldwin was given 900 years ago." The Earl of Devon is what he calls an "unashamed" proponent of hereditary peers. "I am the one person who defends the indefensible," he argues that, at a time of concern about the "rabid consumption of our natural world" hereditaries offer a "long-term, multi-generational view" and are less likely to be focused on short term political gains. With his remaining months, he is hoping to, if not change the law, then get some support for his amendment to remove what he calls "the patriarchal, misogynistic" rules that bar women from inheriting most titles."I find it faintly, totally ridiculous, embarrassing and wrong that my sisters and my aunt or my daughter can't inherit the title."Whether or not his amendments are accepted, it is all but certain that his children will not get the chance to sit in the Lords based on the title alone - a fact the earl is more than resigned to. "The big time for the Courtenay family was around 1100. Ever since then it's been a kind of slight gentle winding down of glories. "This is just another step on the route to ignominy." 'Sticking plaster' "I will not miss commuting 672 miles there and back every week," says Lord Thurso, a Liberal Democrat peer. He lives in Thurso, a town which is on the north coast of Scotland and about as far from the Lords as you can be without getting on a boat. He has no problem with hereditary peers getting the boot ("the idea we have some unique quality is laughable," he says) but doubts it will make much difference."This is another sticking plaster over something that really needs to be dealt with."He says the Lords have good debates and scrutinise the government's plans "extremely well" but "does it actually get us anywhere? It doesn't."To have influence with the government, the Lords needs legitimacy, he says."A house full of largely retired MPs put out to grass for 30 or 40 years or people like me who inherited it because their grandfather was cabinet secretary? That's no way to put together a second chamber." In 2012, he worked on a doomed plan that would have seen the Lords made up of a combination of elected and appointed peers. He says there is not "cat in hell's chance" of the government making any further changes once the current bill is passed. He wants to see ministers use the legislation to make other changes including a 20 year term limit for new peers and a restriction on the size of the house. "If you've got those two, well, then we can wait another 100 years or so for democracy," he sighs. 'We've had six murders here' Lord Howe inherited his title from a son-less second cousin in 1984, along with Penn House, a stately Buckinghamshire home. "My wife and I lived in a small terrace house in London. She was a teacher. I was working in bank."All of a sudden I had a call to say I'd inherited the title."It was a shock to the system - particularly when you arrive on a dark January evening, the front door creaks open and there is a butler saying 'Welcome home your Lordship'. And it didn't feel like home at all."The heating bill cost more than his annual salary, he remembers. Just a few years after becoming a peer, he was made a minister by then Conservative prime minister John Major ("Must have been scraping the barrel," he says).He's been on the front bench of his party ever since in various 40 years on, his enthusiasm for the Lords has not diminished. "I love the place. I've found it very fulfilling. And just occasionally you feel that you've done a little bit of good." 'A bad political misjudgement' Lord Hacking is a rare thing - a Labour hereditary peer. There are only four of his kind, a fact that partly explains the government's enthusiasm to get rid of got the title in 1971, but never expected to stay so assumed hereditary peers would soon be removed and decided that once kicked out he could run to be an MP. "It didn't quite work out like," he says. "A bad political misjudgement." "I remained in the House of Lords until 1999 when I was 62 and that was a bit late then to think about getting into the House of Commons. He backs his party's position on hereditary peers but not without regret. "I wouldn't say I'm happy to get rid of them. I'm sad but I think what will happen... is that the very best of the hereditary peers will be invited to have a life peerage."I'm sure there will be a compromise. We always compromise out of situations in England."You can listen to the interviews on BBC Radio 4's The Westminster Hour on BBC Sounds
Yahoo
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Starmer's House of Lords reform is just a power grab
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill begins its committee stage in the upper chamber today. It is a miserable contribution to the saga of reforming the House of Lords. Its only major provision is to undo the compromise agreed to ensure the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, by which hereditary peers lost their right to sit and vote but an 'excepted' group of 90 of them, elected by their own ranks, would remain. The Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain also remained ex officio. This change was promised as an immediate measure in Labour's election manifesto, which described hereditary peers as 'indefensible'. By isolating it from any other significant change, however, Sir Keir Starmer is proposing a mean-minded measure which will do nothing to make the House of Lords more effective, representative or accountable, but instead represents a thinly veiled power grab by the executive. There is a democratic argument against the hereditary peerage. For reasons the minister in charge of the Bill, Nick Thomas-Symonds, was unable to articulate, however, the government sees an hereditary peerage as wholly separate from the hereditary monarchy, which it supports. But the argument is not necessarily decisive. Labour has also maintained that the House of Lords is too big. This is a frequent but flimsy argument: there are 835 peers entitled to attend but they do not all do so at the same time, and average attendance is lower than in the House of Commons. The removal of 92 hereditary peers is modest, given the 64 life peers that the prime minister has sent to the Lords in less than eight months. Nor are the hereditaries a Tory closed shop: 45 are Conservatives and only four Labour, but there are 33 crossbenchers and four Liberal Democrats. The real mischief of the current Bill is its betrayal of the deal to keep 92 hereditary peers which Blair agreed with the Conservative leader in the Lords, Viscount Cranborne, in 1998. This was a kind of deposit: the opposition had objected to the Lords becoming a 'House of Cronies' if wholesale reform was not implemented. The interim retention of the hereditaries was a concession to reassure opponents that the government would not stop at 'stage one' reform. They would be a stone in the shoe to make sure there was a 'stage two'. There has been no stage two reform of the House of Lords. Labour raised various proposals in 2003, 2007 and 2008, and the coalition government produced a draft House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012 but could not reach agreement on its final terms. Lords reform is hard: identifying unsatisfactory elements of the upper house is much easier than finding a consensus on what should take its place. In opposition, Sir Keir Starmer pledged support for a plan devised by Gordon Brown to replace the Lords with an 'Assembly of the Nations and Regions'. By autumn 2023, that commitment was walked back, and the following May Labour's Baroness Smith of Basildon professed an 'open mind' on hereditary peers. Now the government's only commitment is to reform of some kind, at some point, after a consultation. In the meantime, the current Bill will have one striking effect. If the remaining hereditary peers are removed, the House of Lords will, for the first time in its 750-year history, consist solely of legislators appointed by the government. This was the outcome feared in 1998, in democratic terms no better than the existing composition. The hereditary peers are, after all, the only elected members of the House, albeit by a tiny electorate. Patronage is addictive. I suspect that the government, looking at a revising chamber almost wholly chosen by party leaders, will come to find that further reform is not so pressing after all and that the 'temporary' arrangement is very satisfactory. Making the House more independent or assertive will never be a priority. Parliamentary sovereignty is paramount. But the government is undermining that sovereignty by bringing the composition of the House of Lords further under its own control. Status quo, or comprehensive reform: but not this shoddy power grab. Eliot Wilson is a former House of Commons clerk Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer's House of Lords reform is just a power grab
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill begins its committee stage in the upper chamber today. It is a miserable contribution to the saga of reforming the House of Lords. Its only major provision is to undo the compromise agreed to ensure the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, by which hereditary peers lost their right to sit and vote but an 'excepted' group of 90 of them, elected by their own ranks, would remain. The Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain also remained ex officio. This change was promised as an immediate measure in Labour's election manifesto, which described hereditary peers as 'indefensible'. By isolating it from any other significant change, however, Sir Keir Starmer is proposing a mean-minded measure which will do nothing to make the House of Lords more effective, representative or accountable, but instead represents a thinly veiled power grab by the executive. There is a democratic argument against the hereditary peerage. For reasons the minister in charge of the Bill, Nick Thomas-Symonds, was unable to articulate, however, the government sees an hereditary peerage as wholly separate from the hereditary monarchy, which it supports. But the argument is not necessarily decisive. Labour has also maintained that the House of Lords is too big. This is a frequent but flimsy argument: there are 835 peers entitled to attend but they do not all do so at the same time, and average attendance is lower than in the House of Commons. The removal of 92 hereditary peers is modest, given the 64 life peers that the prime minister has sent to the Lords in less than eight months. Nor are the hereditaries a Tory closed shop: 45 are Conservatives and only four Labour, but there are 33 crossbenchers and four Liberal Democrats. The real mischief of the current Bill is its betrayal of the deal to keep 92 hereditary peers which Blair agreed with the Conservative leader in the Lords, Viscount Cranborne, in 1998. This was a kind of deposit: the opposition had objected to the Lords becoming a 'House of Cronies' if wholesale reform was not implemented. The interim retention of the hereditaries was a concession to reassure opponents that the government would not stop at 'stage one' reform. They would be a stone in the shoe to make sure there was a 'stage two'. There has been no stage two reform of the House of Lords. Labour raised various proposals in 2003, 2007 and 2008, and the coalition government produced a draft House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012 but could not reach agreement on its final terms. Lords reform is hard: identifying unsatisfactory elements of the upper house is much easier than finding a consensus on what should take its place. In opposition, Sir Keir Starmer pledged support for a plan devised by Gordon Brown to replace the Lords with an 'Assembly of the Nations and Regions'. By autumn 2023, that commitment was walked back, and the following May Labour's Baroness Smith of Basildon professed an 'open mind' on hereditary peers. Now the government's only commitment is to reform of some kind, at some point, after a consultation. In the meantime, the current Bill will have one striking effect. If the remaining hereditary peers are removed, the House of Lords will, for the first time in its 750-year history, consist solely of legislators appointed by the government. This was the outcome feared in 1998, in democratic terms no better than the existing composition. The hereditary peers are, after all, the only elected members of the House, albeit by a tiny electorate. Patronage is addictive. I suspect that the government, looking at a revising chamber almost wholly chosen by party leaders, will come to find that further reform is not so pressing after all and that the 'temporary' arrangement is very satisfactory. Making the House more independent or assertive will never be a priority. Parliamentary sovereignty is paramount. But the government is undermining that sovereignty by bringing the composition of the House of Lords further under its own control. Status quo, or comprehensive reform: but not this shoddy power grab.
