The King's Speech: Removal of Peerages Bill

[Jonathan]

Yesterday's King's Speech contained the following:

"Alongside strong public services and a strong economy, the highest standards of trust in public office are essential for the social contract and the United Kingdom’s collective security. My Government will introduce the Hillsborough Law to bring forward a duty of candour for public servants [Public Office (Accountability) Bill]. My Ministers will also introduce legislation to enable peerages to be removed [Removal of Peerages Bill]. My Government will bring forward proposals that strengthen the delivery, accountability, innovation and productivity of the Civil Service. These proposals will also seek to safeguard its impartiality and core values, to enhance trust and confidence in the institutions of government."

It seems as if this is intended to remove peegages completely, not just to expel the holder from the House of Lords. It will be interesting to see details of the forthcoming bill.

[cb]

One cannot help but wonder if fraternal jealousy is clouding this matter.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/6c1b0ddc-b0ae-4c54-9ff2-7fb68beb6452n%40googlegroups.com.

[malcolm davies]

There is an article in this week ‘s Spectator by Toby Young which is worth reading.

As to the bill itself, the King’s speech refers to giving power to remove peerages.Presumably this power will be given to the House of Lords.

It is worthwhile noting that s1 of the House of Lords(Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 specifically excludes the House of Lords from dealing with hereditary peers.For that position to change s1 will need to be repealed.That means that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor will remain Duke of York( all that has happened so far is that he has been removed from the Roll of the Peerage,an act of dubious legality).

[Jonathan]

I don't see why the power will necessarily lie with the House of Lords. I would have thought it will ultimately be up to the government to decide to remove a peerage, on advice from a committee similar to the forfeiture committee for honours. The House of Lords already has powers to expel members in certain circumstances, although their retain their peerages. It will indeed be interesting to see how the law will apply to hereditary peerages.

[S. S.]

The thing is though that peerages cannot be removed by a committee's recommendation. You'd have to pass an Act of Parliament to remove a peerage each time right? 

S.S.

[colinp]

The Removal of Peerages Bill will be the Act that enables the removal and will set up a process for doing that. Presumably it will work as an enforced disclaimer so that the peerage will continue once the removed peer is dead.

[Ivan Prekajski]

They will remove all surviving peerage in general or just from upper house?

[S. S.]

Well, judging by the language of what was said, they would aim to remove peerages from people in general, regardless of whether they were/are members of the House of Lords. I would presume they would limit it in practice but that opens another can of worms. Do they start removing peerages from those whose ancestors had rather shoddy pasts? Or do they stick to only members of the Lords? Time will tell. 

S.S.

[Jonathan]

Ivan: this Bill relates mainly to instances of life peers who have either committed serious crimes or otherwise brought the system into disrepute through their behaviour (the prime example of the latter, in the minds of those supporting this bill, being Lord Mandelson). There are already laws allowing members of the House of Lords to be suspended or expelled; however, they retain their titles. The idea is that peers could also have their titles removed, so Mandelson would revert to being Mr Peter Mandelson. As S. S. points out, this usually requires a specific Act of Parliament for each peerage removed, so the question is whether a general Act could be passed so that a simple process can then be used to remove a title.

It is not clear whether this is intended to apply also to hereditary peers. I suspect not, as hereditaries will no longer be in the public eye, so I am expecting the Bill only to apply to life peerages, but we shall see.

[Ivan Prekajski]

Thank you Jonathan for explaining this to me. I didn't understand what was behind this law. 

[Henry W]

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 only removed the House of Lords jurisdiction over claims to hereditary peerages.  See:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/12/section/3

The jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to claims to hereditary peerages is abolished.

The House did not have jurisdiction to remove a peerage, so there was no point in removing this.

I can foresee a few different bodies being possibilities - the honours forfeiture committee being possibly the most obvious.  It may be that more than one is involved. If a life peer is sitting in the House, presumably primary jurisdiction falls to the Lords to expel him/her first.  Removal of a peerage could extend to both life and hereditary peers.  If a hereditary peerage is to be removed, presumably it will be for the lifetime of the current peer only, reverting to normal succession on the peer's death (there would be no attainder of blood, and it would act similarly to a disclaimer under the Peerage Act 1963 as Colin suggests).  I would be interested to know if they would extend the scope of the bill to baronets as well.

I think the hereditary peers are likely to be included in the proposal - not only is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (nominally the current Duke of York, but not on the roll) a serious liability to the Royal Family and so there is an argument for further powers to completely remove the Dukedom, but other hereditary peers have been guilty of serious crimes - the 19th / 6th Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne and the 4th Viscount St Davids have been convicted of (separate) serious offences that lead to custodial sentences.  The 12th Duke of Marlborough, and the 3rd Baron Brocket are facing (separate) serious charges. 

[malcolm davies]

Henry W,

                The power to remove a peerage cannot be delegated.The fact finding process can be,but legislation must set out the grounds on which deprivation can be effected.This is what the Titles Deprivation Act did.The ground for deprivation was adhering to enemies of the King.The delegation was to a committee to determine whether that in fact had happened.

  The bill will run into trouble on this ground alone-why should there be a deprivation without committal of a criminal offence?And what offences are serious enough to warrant such action where the sentence has expired?

[ThomasFoolery]

Why can’t it be delegated?  This happens all the time with other honours. If there’s nothing specific required to receive a Peerage, not sure why there should need to be something specific required to lose the Peerage. 

[malcolm davies]

Thomas you ask why can’t it be delegated.

The short answer is that a peerage is not like a knighthood or a decoration.Once a peerage is created,the Crown loses all power over it,and it descends according to the limitation in the instrument of creation(usually letters patent).That limitation must conform to the rules regarding the descent of property and a peerage is property,described as an an incorporeal heriditament.

Thus a peerage can only be deprived by act of parliament.

Parliament is not able to delegate its legislative power.The reason for that is the sovereignty of parliament over the Crown and delegation is inconsistent with that.

What Parliament can do is delegate the power to make rules and regulations consistent with the legislation.So Parliament must set out the grounds on which a peerage may be deprived,but allow the Crown through public servants to carry out the task and they must conform to the power given to them by Parliament.

Unlike members of profession where there is a public interest in who may practice,there is no such interest for peers.

As deprivation is a serious matter,it is unlikely that Parliament will approve any deprivation other than for criminal conduct of a very serious kind.

I know of no peer who falls into that category at present.

[Henry W]

I agree that Parliament should set some terms under which the removal of a peerage would be considered.  It should not simply be because someone has become politically unpopular, however, bringing the country / honours system / peerage system into disrepute could be a part of it.  I would think that most criminal convictions should lead to the removal of a peerage - anything resulting in a custodial sentence is probably disqualifying for me.

I think there is a public interest in who holds a peerage, regardless of whether that peer has sat in Parliament in the past or not.  Ultimately a peerage is a mark of distinction to the rest of society (in the same way as other honours, although I accept that peerages have served other purposes).  Whilst hereditary titles usually mark the distinction of a long dead relative, this does not mean that the current peer is not holding a position of distinction in society.   Where the behaviour of a peer brings this into disrepute, they should lose the peerage, with it becoming dormant for the remainder of the removed peer's lifetime, and then on his/her death, passing to the next in remainder.

The historical standard that peerages once granted by the Crown are beyond the scope of the Crown to remove unilaterally comes from a different context of the power balance between Crown and Parliament.  Whilst I don't propose unilateral powers for the Crown, the concept that we should continue to regard peerages as some sort of inextinguishable entity beyond almost any accountability is an anachronistic one in modern society.  

[malcolm davies]

Henry W,

               I am afraid I strongly disagree with you.

  What you foreshadow is actually more severe than in the past when forfeiture could take place if a person was convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.That came to an end with s1 of the Forfeiture Act 1870.And today you can be sentenced to imprisonment for a misdeameanor.

  There are other problems as well-why should it apply to a person who cannot sit in the House of Lords? At the time of creation of the peerage there was no such requirement.The privileges of being a peer no longer exist.Without privileges there is no reason to impose sanctions.Persons practising a profession, by contrast have privileges-the ability to have their services recognised and be well remunerated.

  Secondly it amounts to extra curial  and double punishment-which is to be avoided under the rule of law.

  Thirdly any action is,in relation to peers who live overseas,unenforceable.Again this discredits the rule of law.

[Henry W]

If there are no privileges to the peerage, what loss is it to have it removed?  Because it gives one distinction in society and amongst one's peers. If the behaviour of the peer means this distinction is no longer appropriate, then the peerage should be removed.  With hereditary peerages given no privileges, and life peers who have retired from the House having no privileges, then really those peerages are really just honours.  I do accept that peers still sitting in the House of Lords need to be treated differently and subject to expulsion from the House before the peerage can be removed.

We remove honours from those who have brought the honours system into disrepute, and I don't think I've ever read complaints that this lead to problems with double jeopardy.  

Removal of a peerage (or other honour) is only insofar as that peerage (or honour) is accorded recognition (or not) by the British state.  I accept that this is less troubling to those that live abroad (or in the case of some hereditary peers, they are not and never have been British citizens), but the sanction is the same - the British state will not recognise them as a peer.  Ultimately some peers might try to continue their title in pretense whether resident abroad or in the UK, and I don't care much if they do - ultimately most media outlets and other bodies would follow the lead of the British government in no longer according a peer with their title.

[992234177]

Perhaps life peers and first holders of hereditary peerages should be the ones who lose out, only.

[S. S.]

There are no first holders of a hereditary peerage left. So I am not sure how that is going to work. 

S.S.

[Tim]

There are actually a very small number of remaining first holders of hereditary peerages, but all are current or former members of the Royal Family:

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (created Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn in 1999 and Earl of Forfar in 2019)

HRH The Prince of Wales (created Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus in 2011)

The Duke of Sussex (also Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Killeel, all titles created in 2018); no longer uses HRH style as a non-working royal

Commander Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh in 1986, but no longer uses any of his titles.

Tim

[S. S.]

I was talking about hereditary peers, not members of the royal family, though yes the latter are the only group that remain that hold hereditary peerages of the first creation. 

S.S.

[colinp]

The Government's briefing notes on the King's Speech have a section on the proposed Bill - I set out below the relevant parts - it is not entirely clear but it seems the Bill will only apply to peers who have been members of the House of Lords 

CORRECTED CLEAN 27 May FINAL Embargoed Lobby Pack 2026

What does the Bill do? ● The Bill will create a mechanism for removing peerages from disgraced peers, without the need to introduce bespoke legislation for every individual case. It will introduce a strengthened system of accountability for peers that applies to both current and retired members of the House of Lords. ● The public rightly expects that peers who are, or have been, members of the House of Lords, exercising public functions as legislators, should uphold the highest standards in public life. Where they fall well below those standards, they should not expect to continue to be afforded the honour of holding a peerage. ● At the moment, disgraced peers can still benefit from their title, in terms of their status and reputation, even if they are expelled from the House of Lords or choose to resign. ● The Government was elected on the promise of increasing accountability and ensuring that all serving peers meet the high standards the public expects. Having passed the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, which removes the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, the Government secured agreement with the Lords to establish a dedicated select committee to look at how best to implement the manifesto commitments on a retirement age and participation requirement. Territorial extent and application ● The Bill will extend and apply to the whole of the UK. 84 Key facts ● A peerage is a dignity conferred by the Crown. In contrast to other types of styles, titles, and honours that can be removed under the Royal Prerogative, there is currently no mechanism by which a peerage can be removed, and to do so in any individual case would require an Act of Parliament. ● The Titles Deprivation Act 1917, which authorised enemies of the UK to be deprived of their peerages during the First World War, is the most recent example of Parliament legislating in this way. The most recent example of an Act of Parliament specifically removing an individual’s peerage is over five centuries old (from 1478). ● The revocation of peerages from individuals is separate to the rules related to suspension and expulsion of members from the House of Lords. Members can be removed from the House of Lords for various reasons, including being sentenced to a year or more of imprisonment, for example. But expulsion from the House of Lords does not change their title or status as a peer. This means that a peer may be guilty of serious misconduct, including a criminal offence, and expelled from the House, but would still hold their peerage. ● A peer may be removed from the Roll of the Peerage (an officially compiled and maintained list, intended to contain the names of all living peers). This means the peerage may no longer be recognised officially, but does not affect an individual’s right to that peerage (which can only be removed by legislation). ● The manifesto committed to ensuring “all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them” and to “introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed.” ● The Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Government, Hannah White, said “The Mandelson case demonstrates why – for the good of public trust in parliament – it is important for the House of Lords to have a mechanism to remove peerages.”

[marquess]

What happens if a non British resident peer is convicted in a foreign court for a crime committed overseas? Will the legislation only remove an hereditary peerage for the lifetime of the holder without any further petition required on the death of the offending holder for his successor to use their titles officially?