Britain’s hereditary lords hatch a survival plan

LONDON — Some of Britain’s hereditary peers are already planning a comeback to the House of Lords despite the ruling Labour Party’s plans to boot them out.

Peers from multiple parties have discussed the prospect of at least 10 of the 92 lawmakers — eligible to stand for the U.K. parliament’s second chamber due to their aristocratic birth — being nominated for life peerages after the government axes their existing rights to sit and vote later this year, four peers told POLITICO.

Such life peerages would ostensibly be offered by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the normal way, but in practice they would be reserved by respective parties to hand to selected hereditary peers in their ranks.

Those who spoke to POLITICO stressed that conversations were informal and only at an early stage. A government spokesperson said it was “completely untrue” that any such talks were taking place with the involvement of the government.

But such a move could soften the passage of Labour’s Hereditary Peerages Bill, which aims to end a major anti-democratic anachronism in the British system and has faced stiff opposition in the Lords.

The Liberal Democrats and Labour each have four hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords at present. Two from each party would receive life peerages under one proposal being discussed among peers. Of the 45 Conservative hereditary peers in the Lords, peers believe that six or seven may be offered places.

The future of the 33 crossbench hereditary peers, who are not aligned to any party, is less clear. One opposition frontbencher suggested that some may be recommended for life peerages by Starmer on the advice of Angela Smith, leader of the House of Lords.

The Labour government is legislating to remove the 92 hereditaries, all men, who remained in place as a compromise when the party last tried to reform the Lords in 1999. Peers put forward more than 100 amendments and the bill will return for fractious votes this summer. This “report stage” is currently not expected before June.

Labour figures flatly deny that there is any co-ordination. Smith has repeatedly said no one has been offered a life peerage in exchange for supporting the bill, insisting in December that there “have been no aside-comments or dodgy deals whatever.”

However, Smith also told peers: “It is possible for departing hereditary peers to be nominated in future peerage lists. Political parties of course have the opportunity to do that.”

The Conservative leader in the Lords, Nicholas True, added: “We are aware of no such offer which would be a shoddy way to treat large numbers of hard-working independent and Conservative members of the House of Lords. If any peers are to be thrown out, it should be those who don’t contribute, not those who do.”

True has rejected Labour’s proposal that former hereditary peers could be ennobled in future lists, and argued that the House of Lords should agree a number of “converted” peerages.

‘No dodgy deals’

Despite the lack of a formal deal, some hereditary peers — backed by senior figures in their parties — are pushing for private assurances that at least some of their number will be able to return as life peers as Labour wields the ax.

Unlike hereditary peers, who are replaced like-for-like in the Lords through elections by their colleagues in the second chamber, these life peers would not be directly replaced when they die or retire.

Two Conservative peers suggested negotiations over potential life peerages could help grease the wheels of business in the Lords, where the opposition has been accused of bogging legislation down.

One said the atmosphere in the Lords is now “very divided and quite heated,” and the prospect of “converting” some peers “would take a lot of heat out of the future of the hereditaries’ bill, not to mention the rest of the passage of legislation.” 

Conservative peers argue that some of their hereditaries, including Shadow Deputy Leader in the Lords Frederick Curzon and former Lords Leader Thomas Galbraith, are well-liked and allowing their return would boost support for the bill.

While the government firmly denies any such talks are taking place, the same Tory peer maintained it was “inconceivable” that such talks would not have involved either whips or Smith’s office, either directly or through back channels. However, they stressed any talks would be “light touch,” at an early stage and informal.

One senior Labour figure, granted anonymity like others in this piece to speak freely, said the government had previously suggested the Conservatives should use a set of six peerages created in December last year to ennoble some hereditary members, but they declined to do so.

A second Labour figure in the Lords said some Conservatives are now “very, very keen” on conversion. “There’s definitely been the idea that the Conservatives could use their opportunities” to put hereditaries in some life peerage slots that were coming up for grabs anyway, they added.

Bumpy ride

After sailing through the House of Commons last year, the bill is facing a bumpier journey through the Lords. 

Ministers have long been determined that the bill should be a surgical strike to remove one of the British parliamentary system’s most glaring anachronisms and are extremely resistant to attaching other reforms. 

Tories accuse the government of failing to honor the deal struck in 1999, which promised a fuller overhaul when the last hereditary peers were removed. Others argue the bill is hopelessly unambitious, with some pointing out that Starmer vowed to scrap the Lords altogether when he was in opposition.

Conservatives also complain the bill is a partisan measure designed to boost Labour’s numbers in votes, since around half of all the sitting hereditary peers are Conservative.

The government has always insisted this was only the first of three stages of reform, and promised to consult further on mandatory retirement age for peers before legislating. But many in the Lords regard this as a dim prospect given the energy and time expended on scrapping hereditary peerages.

Former Tory minister Douglas Hogg, who was given a life peerage in 2015, predicted there would be no further “substantive” reforms in the foreseeable future, apart from perhaps a retirement age — loosened from the original proposal of 80 years — or to raise the minimum attendance threshold.

The bill was debated for five days at its committee stage, more than almost any government bill so far since Labour took office. At least two amendments appeared to be longer than the 21-line bill itself. 

Despite the large number of amendments, Hogg predicted: “The government want this bill unamended. I think that it is likely that they will achieve their objective.”

‘Abuse of position’

Jess Garland, director of research and policy for the Electoral Reform Society, which campaigns to replace the Lords with an elected chamber, accused some peers of “delaying tactics,” adding: “Our concern is that this is in effect an abuse of position, as peers appear to be delaying this short, manifesto-backed bill as a warning shot to the government on what it can expect if it moves onto wider Lords reform.”

Charles Courtenay, a crossbencher better known as the Earl of Devon, has been one of a handful to defend the hereditary principle, saying: “It’s distinctive and it’s important — that continuity and that length of knowledge and view.”

In public, though, most hereditary peers have avoided defending their noble birthright and instead protested the government’s methods.

Aeneas MacKay, who fellow peers elected to the Lords in 2019 on a title given to his ancestor in 1628, said in December that he agreed with his own removal once the Lords was “fully reformed.” But he said the reforms were “inconsistent with the spirit” of Labour’s reforms to workers’ rights, and “we are to be bundled out of this place with something that looks a little too like contempt for comfort.”