House of Lords reform - Labour manifesto

[colinp]

The Labour Party manifesto published today contains the following about the House of Lords:

The next Labour government will [ ] bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

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 appointments process to ensure 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

I thought they might abolish the hereditary peers elections but not actually remove them.  The compulsory retirement age of 80 is a bit of a surprise as there are a lot of over-80 Labour peers.  I expect we shall see a large number of Labour peers created if Labour wins on 4 July

[Henry W]

Yes, a swift removal of the remaining hereditary peers is a surprise as you say, especially as the original plan in 1999 was for them to remain in place until House of Lords reform was complete, which of course it will not be as Labour seem to plan a 3rd phase of reform.  I expect that several of the active, younger hereditary peers might find their way back by virtue of a life peerage (as happened after 1999 for a handful of peers who weren't amongst the 90 elected peers).

80 as a retirement age (albeit, at the end of that Parliament) is a surprise as you say.  I strongly endorse a more robust participation requirement, and would have hoped that would be sufficient to remove those who should have gone earlier - there are several peers who remain excellent parliamentarians beyond 80, and we should not seek to exclude them on age alone.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/house-of-lords-data-dashboard-membership-of-the-house/

Above link may be useful to posters unaware of it.  It tells us that there are currently 186 eligible members aged 80 or older (NB eligible members seems not to include those on Leave of Absence, Suspended, or Disqualified for holding Judicial Office).  Also that the average age of the Labour peers, 74, is greater than all other party groups.

[malcolm davies]

If hereditary peers are to be removed,logically there is no reason why the House of Lords should have any involvement in determining the succession of peerages and who has proved their claim.The purpose of the Roll of the Peerage is currently supported because if you are not on the Roll,you are not eligible to stand for election.

[LoopyCrown3]

I wonder how they will address the issue of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

[marquess]

For a monarch who supports the creation of hereditary peerages this is an opportunity to create them with no criticism of interferring in politics. Charles is probably not that monarch. I think he will perhaps be the first ruler since Queen Jane Grey who creates no hereditary peerages.  As to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlin, they never participate in politics anyway; thus there should be no objection to them carrying out their ceremonial duties. A ban on them would be a snub to the monarch.

[malcolm davies]

Good point Marquess.

With no House of Lords,any creation of life peerages above the rank of baron is incapable of challenge.The King may not in fact create any hereditary peers,but he might create life peers above the degree of baron as he did with Prince Edward,now Duke of Edinburgh.y

[S. S.]

I am not quite sure how well it would go down in giving earldoms and dukedoms out even for life to members of the public, no matter how exalted or well endowed they may be.

S.S.

[colinp]

The rumour is that Labour will want to create about 100 life peers if they get in which is why they will evict the 92 hereditaries straightaway

[bx...@yahoo.com]

colinp, obviously, none of us has a crystal ball, but what do you think happens with all of this in the end? 

Brooke

[marquess]

The hereditary peerage is seperated from the House of Lords with the exception of the Earl Marahal and the Lord Great Chamberlin. Hopefuly it will open the gates to creation of new hereditary peerages as they will no longer be involved in the political governance of the country.

[sven_me...@web.de]

Why should that be a good idea? It would be a big step backward not forward.

[S. S.]

marquess, I think we have went back and forth on this idea, but introducing hereditary peerages back is not a good idea. The social fabric of the nation and the era in which we live in makes it highly unsuitable to have a hereditary peerage once again. As we have observed, even the Royal Family has been reluctant to give out peerages to its members and that is a trend that we shall observe for many years down the road. This is not to mention the public outrage at the prospect of hereditary peers coming once again. I am well aware some other nations do continue to give out peerages, but their economic, social and political backgrounds are vastly different to what a peerage constitutes in modern day UK. 

S.S.

[Peter de Loriol Chandieu]

As far as Life peerages are concerned - no Life Peerages above the rank of Baron are allowed to be created since the inception of Life peerages. This is enshrined in Law. After all they are Barons of Parliament. I for one, would prefer it remains an unelected chamber - more an appointed chamber by other than politicians - so the Lords remain an advisory chamber, using their professional (if they have any - but it should be mandatory that a peer should have attained a senior position in commerce, industry, law or arts) expertise. In other words the House of Lords should be apolitical.

On Thursday 13 June 2024 at 17:59:50 UTC+1 colinp wrote:

[sven_me...@web.de]

Making a chamber of parliament apolitical makes no sense at all. 

[sven_me...@web.de]

And please advocate for more democracy!

Peter de Loriol Chandieu schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2024 um 19:27:02 UTC+2:

[LoopyCrown3]

I expect a large number of Peerages created in the Dissolution List given their are some long standing MP's retiring. I also think Labour if win we may see Blair or Brown put in by Starmer. Then if their is a Labour win we would also get a PM resignation list so likely more Life Peers.

[992234177]

I would prefer it if we had life and hereditary.   I think that life peerages should be jobs, appointments to parliament and that hereditaries should be thank yous for actions, I don’t like how ex M.P.s are sent upstairs sometimes to get rid of them.   There are always stories of M.P.s  being offered peerages if they’ll leave eg Nadine Dorries.   There are so many people who almost automatic peerages.

[malcolm davies]

The creation of 100 new life peers is something the King should resist,unless there is no other means of reforming the House of Lords.The process should start with a bill in the House of Commons as to the powers of the Lords and only if it is clear that the legislation cannot be passed should the King consider making new peers.Otherwise he will simply be asked again when the government changes(as it inevitably will).In 1911 the King only agreed to create new peers after there was an election.Here the reform of the House of Lords is not part of the Labour case for election.

If the hereditary peers are removed,the question is who should decide disputed claims to titles.The privileges committee of the House of Lords did this on the basis that it had control over its membership.If hereditary peers are no longer eligible to be members of the House of Lords the reason for that power is lost and should revert to the Crown.

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

What chances of Reform getting a "majority" and forming government. What are their plans for the House of Lords ? 

[Jonathan]

The chance is exactly zero (ref. Electoral Calculus). Their policy is to replace the House of Lords with a "much smaller, more democratic second chamber."

[Henry W]

If the House of Lords no longer contains hereditary peers, I agree that Privileges Committee should no longer adjudicate.  I agree that reverting to the Crown, presumably advised by a Privy Council committee similar to the Baronetage Committee.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

An interesting Politico article, published today, about the impending efforts to eliminate hereditary peers from the House of Lords:

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-last-of-the-lords-uk-government-reform-house-of-lords-keir-starmer/

[john]

The reform bill will be introduced today in the Commons. It is reported that the bill includes the removal of the Earl Marshall and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

On the Order Paper it says:

Bill 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; and for connected purposes.

The most interesting part of the bill for this group might be the part on the jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerages.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I was wondering--

If they are successful in removing the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, then why even bother calling it the "House of Lords" and going through the creation of "life peerages?"

At that point, they can just appoint and approve people as they are selected now, without making them actual peers and peeresses, and just rename that body of Parliament.

Brooke

[marquess]

If the Bill does goes through then I would happy to see the chamber renamed and for there to be a complete disassociation between the hereditary peerage and their life peerage counter parts.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I totally agree with you, marquess.

Brooke

[David Beamish]

The bill and explanatory notes can now be found on the Parliament website: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3755/publications

It is fairly straightforward, and is to come into force at the end of the session in which it is passed. As regards claims to hereditary peerages, section 2 abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to claims to hereditary peerages, including peerages in abeyance.

[S. S.]

If the House of Lords no longer has jurisdiction in claims to hereditary peerages, including peerages in abeyance, who else would adjudicate such a matter? How else are we to have a de facto answer in claims to peerages. I am interested to see if they have something else upcoming that would remedy this. 

S.S.

[marquess]

The matter should then be placed in the hands of the Crown, where it would be hoped that thye are able to act with better expediancy than the current system. Also where cases like the earldom of Arlington can be called out of abeyance based upon previous precedence. We may well get the peerage into its original postion, i.e an hereditary title of honour that doesn't automatically confer political power; the bestowel of which is entirely in the gift of the Crown. I fear that the current monarch with his desire for 'modernity' will never confer an hereditary peerage; even on members of his own family. 

[sven_me...@web.de]

Sadly too many people here are still living in the past.

[marquess]

Aren't all titles of honour based upon traditions that have been built up over centuries, hence from the past. We're all living in the past to some extent unless the world constantly remakes itself with every  passing second and there is no reference to anything that has happened before. Imagine the joy of reading the London Gazette in 30's and reading that so and so had been made a baronet or an earl. This group is largely about treating with things from the past.

[S. S.]

I think marquess you tend to forget that we as a group do not hanker for a period in which people lived, rather we hanker to document those that had lived in a certain period of time and what that time has wrought upon the subsequent generations. It is very easy to think of this world of glittering coronets and pageantry, but we tend to forget we no longer live in such a world anymore. Social, political, religious and cultural norms have all made it so that there remains little incentive for people to revive the "hereditary principle" and pageantry of the peerage as it were. 

Do remember that in the 30's when you could have had the joy of reading of new peerages and baronetcies being announced, it was against a backdrop of an unequal, classist, imperialistic society, whose riches and splendor had been built upon mounds of blood, sweat and tears of those less fortunate to serve under one who wore a coronet. Granted, we have our own problems in the modern world, but the concept of a peerage of "that time", just is not compatible to the one we live in. The peerage as we once knew it will never reach the same level, or anything close to that at this point in time. You could make similar arguments to many things that some view as "traditional", but the peerage is perhaps the best embodiment of a "out of touch" group as it were, even if the present composition does not include the same sort that once lived, it still matters that a majority people don't care for it much as a whole. 

S.S.

[marquess]

It's not a matter of longing for how life was in general in the past but simply for  the gazetting of hereditary peerages. My comments could equally have been applied to the early 60's. The conferring of hereditary peerages has as far as I am aware has never been a means to curtail the general quality of life for the public. 

[colinp]

There was a short debate in the Lords yesterday following a private notice question from Lord Strathclyde

House of Lords: Composition - Hansard - UK Parliament

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

Interestingly in belgium, they continue to issue nobility, hereditary and for life. In Spain, as far as I am aware, the present King has not issued no new peerages. Nobility is on the blink at best. Knighthoods on the other hand still very popular to all Kingdoms.

[John B-H]

It is stated in the explanatory notes of the bill that the intention is that "any complex or disputed peerage claims that would have otherwise been referred to the House of Lords will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by way of section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833".

[Henry W]

There was some discussion of this in the House of Lords on Thursday:

Hansard of 5 September 2024 - House of Lords: Composition

[Henry W]

Apologies to Colin for re-posting the same information about the House of Lords private question from Thursday.

I just want to address the issues around the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.  Whilst they were among the 92 excepted hereditary peers in 1999 - in fact the only two excepted ex-officio - I've never been convinced there was a compelling argument that they have to be members of the House of Lords.

Deputyships for both positions have existed whereby the exerciser of the office was not a peer.  This has been the case both before the 20th century and during the 20th & 21st centuries.

Deputy Earls Marshal

2000 - 2002:  Earl of Surrey (later 18th Duke of Norfolk) was Deputy during the infirmity of his father, the 17th Duke.
1917 - 1921: Lord Edmund Talbot (1st Viscount Fitzalan of Derwent from 1921) was Deputy (until 1929) during the minority of his nephew, the 16th Duke

1861 - 1868: Lord Edward Fitzalan-Howard (later 1st Baron Howard of Glossop) was Deputy during the minority of his nephew, the 15th Duke

1816 - 1824: Lord Henry Howard-Molyneux-Howard was Deputy due to the Catholicism of his brother, the 12th Duke.

Lord Great Chamberlain

The 1912 agreement explicitly states that the "person appointed must not be of inferior degree to a Knight".  It follows that it is possible for someone who is not a peer to be appointed.

1966 - 1968: The Earl of Rocksavage (later 6th Marquess of Cholmondeley) was appointed during the infirmity of his father, the 5th Marquess.

1928 - 1936: Viscount Lewisham (later 7th Earl of Dartmouth) was appointed for the "Carrington share" after the death of his father-in-law, the 1st Marquess of Lincolnshire.  If a peer had been required, then 3rd Baron Nunburnholme (1904 - 1974, succ 1924) was a grandson of the 1st Marquess.

1781 - 1796: Sir Peter Burrell (a Knight Bachelor) was appointed as Deputy (NB after 1912, no formal Deputies were appointed, just persons who exercised the office) to his wife and sister-in-law.  He was made Baron GWYDYR in 1796.

[Shachar Raz]

Henry, the explanatory notes to the bill agree with you: "As a result of the Bill, the excepted hereditary peers will no longer be members of the House of Lords. The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain will continue to be able to exercise their ceremonial functions in the House but will no longer be members."

[malcolm davies]

It should be noted that there is nothing in the bill that requires this.All the bill does is abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords over hereditary peers.

The House of Lords still has jurisdiction over life peers-including Prince Edward as Duke of Edinburgh for life.

[Shachar Raz]

What do you mean by "jurisdiction over life peers"?

[S. S.]

I think malcolm refers to the enabling of sitting of parliament by virtue of holding a life peerage under the Life Peerages Act and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. Their right to sit etc is not affected by this bill (unless that changes too). As for peerages for life created outside of either act, I am still of the opinion, as much as Wensleydale case established, that a peerage created for life outside of those two cannot sit in the House of Lords by virtue thereof, which renders Prince Edward's position moot even more so since he never would take his seat. It is a different question when other life peers are created like him in future (if any). 

S.S.

[malcolm davies]

Shachar,

               I mean jurisdiction in this sense-the House of Lords has exclusive jurisdiction to determine who is eligible to sit and vote in the House as provided for by statute(and formerly the common law).

  So for example the House of Lords would be able to enquire and determine any irregularity in letters patent creating a title or whether the letters patent have passed the great seal.Likewise statute provides for the House excluding members voting due to age,lack of attendance and prescribed conduct.The House of Commons exercises similar jurisdiction in relation to its members.

  SS, the problem with Wenlsydale as an authority is that there was no actual decision by the  Committee of Privileges-what happened was there was opposition to Lord Wensleydale taking his seat which was rendered moot when he was given an heriditary peerage.Then came Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876 enabling the creation of law life peers.

  s1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 says "No one shall be a member or the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".s2 then provides exemptions which this bill will abolish.There is no statement in the House of Lords Act 1999 that restricts membership to life peers created under the Life Peerages Act 1958,so it is arguable that the Duke of Edinburgh is (other than the convention that members of the royal family do not sit) entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

 The number of creations of life peers under the Life Peerages Act continues to expand with the numbers now in the same order as knighthoods.This inevitably diminishes the prestige of a life peerage.There will come a time when this may prompt the creation of life peers in degrees above Barons, so that their distinction is properly recognised.

[S. S.]

One more new thing I learned today, thanks malcolm. 

S.S.

[colinp]

The Bill's 2nd Reading debate will take place today in the Commons

[Henry W]

Hansard of 15 October 2024: House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

There was a relatively lively and lengthy debate. Much from Conservative members that this was just further piecemeal reform, and much from others that this was overdue as the hereditary principle should have no place in Parliament any longer.

There was a Conservative amendment that was defeated along party lines.  The bill proceeds to Committee, Consideration and third reading.

[Noel Cox]

The creation of the Duke of Edinburgh, for life, was an aberration, and not one which should have occurred, but they in my opinion - for what it is worth - the decision of Prince James of Edinburgh and Princess Louise of Edinburgh to not use their royal titles is also an unfortunately one

On Thursday 27 June 2024 at 05:27:02 UTC+12 Peter de Loriol Chandieu wrote:

As far as Life peerages are concerned - no Life Peerages above the rank of Baron are allowed to be created since the inception of Life peerages. This is enshrined in Law. After all they are Barons of Parliament. I for one, would prefer it remains an unelected chamber - more an appointed chamber by other than politicians - so the Lords remain an advisory chamber, using their professional (if they have any - but it should be mandatory that a peer should have attained a senior position in commerce, industry, law or arts) expertise. In other words the House of Lords should be apolitical.

[marquess]

Putting  on speed as they go downhill toward the Norwegian model. Sons of sovereigns should never be given life peerages,  it goes against the hereditary principle. It would have been better had Edward remained a mere earl.

[sven_me...@web.de]

The days of the hereditary principle are gone.

[marquess]

Then why is there still an hereditary monarchy? 

[Henry W]

The Committee of the Whole House and Remaining Stages of this bill will take place in the House of Commons on Tuesday this week. 

https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal49454

A number of amendments have been proposed at Committee stage:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3755/stages/19010/amendments

A debate is scheduled in the House of Lords on House of Lords Reform on Tuesday also

https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal49325

To be clear, the debate in the Lords is NOT an official debate on the bill.  The bill must pass all its Commons stages before being debated in the Lords.  I am sure the opportunity will be taken to stake out some positions on the bill though.  No fewer than 18 excepted hereditary peers are due to speak, and a life peer who hold a hereditary peerage (Hailsham). Also Lord GROCOTT - whilst there is little doubt as to which side he is on, he will hopefully bring some wit to proceedings!

[Henry W]

Hansard of 12 November 2023: House of Commons - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

The bill had it's Committee stage.  All amendments that were considered were defeated.

The bill passed its third reading.

Hansard of 12 November 2024: House of Lords - debate on House of Lords Reform

There was a general debate on the topic.

Hansard of 13 November 2024: House of Lords - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

The bill was read a first time.

The two debates were featured heavily on "Today in Parliament" on Tuesday evening on BBC Radio 4.

There was lots of the "standard" points that get raised on this subject in both 12 November debates, which I won't rehash.  I haven't read every single contribution as fully as I would like - there might be some new points out there.

One interesting point about future jurisdiction on disputes about succession to peerages was made by the Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves) to an amendment aiming to explicitly give jurisdiction to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.  As this is more technical / legal, rather than political, I thought readers here might be interested:

Clause 2 abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to hereditary peerage claims. I appreciate that the subject of hereditary peerage claims may be a novel one to hon. Members and one that was not discussed on Second Reading, so let me provide a clear explanation of what hereditary peerage claims are, why they are mentioned in the Bill, and why the Government are proposing to remove the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. A hereditary peerage claim—or peerage claim, as I will refer to them—is when a person seeks to be formally recognised as the holder of the title of a hereditary peerage. Usually, the claimant of the peerage is the undisputed heir and is simply entered on the Roll of the Peerage following an application to the Lord Chancellor.

However, there can be some cases where the claim is disputed or complex. Currently, these cases are usually referred to the other place to advise the Crown on how to determine the claim. The House also confirms undisputed successions of Irish peerages in parallel with an application to the Lord Chancellor. Complex or disputed peerage claims occur very infrequently. There have been fewer than 10 claims considered by the other place in the past 50 years. Given that the Bill removes the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, it is no longer appropriate for these issues to be dealt with by the other place. That is why the Bill would abolish the jurisdiction of the other place in relation to peerage claims. The intention is that future complex or disputed peerage claims that would otherwise have been considered by the other place will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.

Undisputed successions to Irish peerages will, like other types of peerage, continue to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. As hon. Members know, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is made up of justices of the Supreme Court and other senior judges, already has a well-established constitutional role in advising the sovereign and is the appropriate body to consider these matters. The Government have discussed this matter with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is content to take on this function. Therefore, the Government believe that, following the removal of the hereditary peers, it is appropriate for the other place’s jurisdiction in relation to peerage claims to come to an end.

I thought that it would be helpful to briefly address amendment 26 to this clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The amendment makes it explicit that the jurisdiction for considering peerage claims would be transferred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government’s position is that it is unnecessary to expressly state in the Bill the transfer of the jurisdiction of peerage claims. That is because, as I have set out, matters such as peerage claims can already be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the Crown under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his amendment.

Presumably this government position has been advised by the law officers.

[malcolm davies]

HenryW,

              This is what s4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 says:

4.It shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the said Judicial Committee for hearing or consideration any such other matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit; and such Committee shall thereupon hear or consider the same, and shall advise His Majesty thereon in manner aforesaid.

  The House of Lords will still have jurisdiction to determine whether a life peerage created under the Life Peerages Act 1963 or a life peerage created otherwise is valid,as they involve the right to sit in the House of Lords(the latter question is unresolved and likely to remain so for the time being).

  The Judicial Committee may have referred to it an issue regarding life peerages,but it unlikely to accept that referral unless the House of Lords consented.

[colinp]

The second reading debate in the Lords takes place today - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

[Henry W]

Monday 3 March - two commitee debates in the House of Lords

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-03-03/debates/9910D504-CF82-47A3-A365-11538A149D4C/HouseOfLords(HereditaryPeers)Bill

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-03-03/debates/E792AFD5-92BB-4271-8487-FDEB7A56A7F6/HouseOfLords(HereditaryPeers)Bill

Many amendments, all withdrawn before a vote.

[Shachar Raz]

Important to note that the discussion was on Clause 1, which would remove the excepted peers, and was agreed to unamended.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/peerage-news/Rcxl0a5xI3U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/e947ab41-6be5-4f80-a838-ec082545403fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Shachar Raz]

Monday 10 March

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-03-10/debates/23E93FAF-DBE8-4BC6-AE28-8FCD4D3A10B6/HouseOfLords(HereditaryPeers)Bill

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-03-10/debates/A458197A-8850-41B4-A561-0E5CC3E9B92F/HouseOfLords(HereditaryPeers)Bill

The main topic this time was new clauses to the bill, and once again all were withdrawn.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

[David Beamish]

Little significance should be attached to the withdrawal of all the amendments: usually committee stage in the Lords is used for opening skirmishes and any divisions happen at report stage.

[Henry W]

From Private Eye 1645:

[Henry W]

The bill has moved onto the Report stage in the Lords, with the first two parts debated on Wednesday 2 July.

I believe the first 12 amendments have been considered so far - many were withdrawn or not moved, but a couple went to division:

Amendment 2 - which allows all hereditary peers currently sitting to remain in the House, but permanently abolishes the by-elections, was in fact passed 280 - 243.  Presumably the government will try to remove this in the Commons?

2 amendments (Amendments 4 & 5) were voted down by wide margins.

I believe that debate on the Report stage continues on Wednesday 9 July.

[malcolm davies]

The Lord Moynihan described in the Private Eye article was described in the obituary of him in the Daily Telegraph as specialising in running away.

[Henry W]

I think my previous post, sometime last week, was lost by the occasional problem we see of posts never actually posting and appearing deleted.

The bill had its 3rd Reading on Monday after further amendments and has been sent back to the Commons.  As the Commons has risen for recess, it will be September before it is considered there.

The latest version of the bill may be downloaded from here: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3755

The amendments currently mean:

- Currently Excepted Hereditary peers will keep their place but not be replaced.

- I think that the Earl Marshal and the person exercising the office of LGC will continue to have a reserved seat.

- New ministers appointed to the House of Lords must receive a ministerial salary.

- Make it possible to create Life Peerages WITHOUT a seat in the House of Lords.

- Make if possible for those Peers in the House who lack capacity to have someone resign on their behalf.

[Shachar Raz]

I don't think the bit about the Earl Marshal and LGC is true, they will still be excluded.

Also worth noting that the last of these was reached by consensus, while the others are likely to be taken out when the Commons returns.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/peerage-news/Rcxl0a5xI3U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/1b7395bf-bc4a-49c2-9a66-602e5040e0f3n%40googlegroups.com.

[colinp]

Clause 1 of the Bill as amended by the House of Lords limits the number of excepted hereditary peers to 87 which matches the number of elected hereditary peers currently in the Lords ie including Lord Carrington who is also LGC.  On the face of it therefore the Duke of Norfolk as Earl Marshal would lose his seat.  The purpose of the amendment however is that the by-elections will cease but nobody will be expelled, other than by the current means.  Lord Aberdare however has given notice of his intention to retire from the Lords next month so by the time the Bill is enacted (assuming the Commons approve the amendment which I doubt they will) the limit of 87 can include the Duke of Norfolk.  Perhaps the number was selected knowing that Lord Aberdare was intending to retire.  Maybe there is something about this in the Hansard reports of the debates on the Report stage and 3rd reading of the BIll

[John B-H]

Duke of Norfolk, the current Earl Marshal, is actually included in the 87. As Lord Carrington, the current Lord Great Chamberlain, was elected as an excepted hereditary peer in 2018 and he is still excepted by virtue of that, the full number of excepted hereditary peers would now be 91 (90 elected and Earl Marshal). The actual number of excepted hereditary peers is currently 87 including Duke of Norfolk as there are 4 vacancies (after Earl of Sandwich, Lord Willoughby de Broke, Viscount Craigavon and Viscount Waverley) at the moment.

But it's important to note that with these amendments, only the current Earl Marshal and the current Lord Great Chamberlain would remain as members of the House of Lords. Their successors would not become members of the House by virtue of their positions.

[malcolm davies]

A comment about the amendments:

The amended bill contains this clause:

3 (2A) A peerage conferred under this section may, if the letters patent so
state, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle
him, subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of
summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein
accordingly, and shall expire on his death.”

This means that in the case of a hereditary peer who is given a life peerage,the patent determines whether he can sit or not-which is curious.

[Jonathan]

Isn't it always the case that the patent determines whether a life peer may sit in the Lords? Only life peers created under the 1958 act so enttiled. In previous discussions on this subject, the Wensleydale case has come up, where a peerage created for the holder's life was deemed insufficient to sit in the Lords. A more recent example of such a life peerage is the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

[Henry W]

House of Lords reform was back on the agenda this week:

On Monday the following was in the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/08/25/house-of-lords-labour-plans-overhaul-sack/

Lower down in the article are Lady Smith of Basildon's (Leader of the House of Lords) plans on the way forward.

It appears that:

- Some strengthened activity requirement over what is currently in place (Lords must attend at least one sitting in each session of at least 6 months length).

- Mandatory retirement at the end of the Parliament in which a peer turns 80.

- A select committee will consider how best to implement this.

Of course they still need to complete passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.  I believe consideration of Lords amendments will begin in the Commons on Thursday 4 September.

[sven_me...@web.de]

I hope it all goes without problems.

[colinp]

From the House of Lords minutes of proceedings 16 December 2025:

Retirement and Participation Committee The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) moved that: (1) It is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on— (a) a retirement age, and (b) a participation requirement, for members of the House of Lords; (2) In relation to these issues the Committee shall consider and report to the House on— (a) the impact of a retirement age on the House and, in particular, its size and functioning, (b) the impact of a participation requirement on the House and, in particular, its membership and functioning, and (c) options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement including without primary legislation and that these options should include transitional measures, where appropriate; and (3) The Committee do report by 31 July 2026. The motion was agreed to.