Explained: How we ended up with 85 hereditary peers

A brief history

Palace of Westminster, Wikimedia Commons

There are only two countries in the world that reserve places in their parliaments on a hereditary basis. Lesotho, and the UK. Following an investigation by The Sunday Times, hereditary peers are under renewed scrutiny.

The investigation found that these relics of the past had claimed £50 million in expenses since 2001. 46% of them went to Eton. They are all men¹. So, how did we end up with them?

By the fourteenth century, parliament had developed in to two distinct houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. At that time, the Lords contained both senior religious figures and hereditary peers, with the latter in the minority².

Hereditary peers then gained a majority of the first time in the 16th century, as abbots no longer attended after the suppression of the monasteries in 1539³.

Fast-forward 450+ years and the number of hereditary peers had continued to increase. In 1997, there were 759 hereditary peers in comparison to 447 life peers⁴.

301 of the hereditary peers who took a party whip were Conservatives, in comparison to 19 who were Labour. Professor Meg Russell of British and Comparative Politics at University College London argues that many of the independent hereditary peers were ‘suspected of Conservative leanings’⁵.

Thus hereditary peers ensured a significant plurality for the Conservatives. In 1997, there were 477 Conservative peers, 116 Labour, 57 Liberal Democrats, and 322 Crossbench peers who swung the balance⁶.

The then Labour Government set out a bill to attempt to fulfil its manifesto commitment to remove hereditary peers. Originally the bill would have done just that, however strong opposition in the Lords led to compromise.

An amendment proposed by former Commons Speaker Lord Weatherhill proposed that 92 hereditary peers remain. The amendment was accepted, and the House of Lords Act 1999 was passed, resulting in the expulsion of 655 hereditary peers, and a more balanced chamber.⁷ This amendment was originally meant to be temporary until further proposals were agreed, yet they never were.⁸

Thus the number of hereditary peers was limited to 92 by law. When their number falls below 92, a by-election takes place on who should take up their position. However, only hereditary peers who were of the same party as the departed member are able to take part, meaning sometimes there are only three voters.⁹

The number of hereditary peers currently stands at 85, as due to the pandemic, no such by-elections have been able to take place recently.¹⁰One potential option to ‘passively’ reform the number of hereditary peers would simply be to make the current suspension of these by-elections permanent, as proposed by Lord Allardice, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Lord Speaker.¹¹

However, the option of scrapping hereditary peers permanently remains. Whether or not the rather damning Sunday Times investigation helps to increase pressure on this issue remains to be seen.

Footnotes

1. Pogrund, Gabriel, and Tom Calver, ‘Revealed: The Truth About The Peers Who Are Born To Rule’, The Sunday Times, 20 March 2021 <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revealed-the-truth-about-the-house-of-lords-peers-who-are-born-to-rule-nbdvcfrv3> [accessed 21 March 2021]
2. UK Parliament, ‘History Of The Lords’ <https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/history-of-the-lords/> [accessed 21 March 2021]
3. Miller, Helen, ‘I. Attendance in the House of Lords during the Reign of Henry VIII’, Hist. J., 10.3 (1967), 337 <10.1017/s0018246x0002762x>
4. Russell, Meg, ‘“Reforming The British House Of Lords How A Little Reform Can Go A Long Way” — Parliament Of Australia’, Parliament of Australia, 2007 <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/~/link.aspx?_id=25A63692B488497B9304A3697AA8A75D&_z=z#_ftn5> [accessed 21 March 2021]
5. Ibid
6. Russell, Meg, ‘Parliament: A Significant Constraint on Government’, in Developments in British Politics 10, ed. by Richard Heffernan (Macmillan International Higher Education, 2016), p. 115
7. Russell, Meg, ‘“Reforming The British House Of Lords How A Little Reform Can Go A Long Way” — Parliament Of Australia’, Parliament of Australia, 2007 <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/~/link.aspx?_id=25A63692B488497B9304A3697AA8A75D&_z=z#_ftn5> [accessed 21 March 2021]
8. UK Parliament, ‘Hereditary Peers Removed’ <https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/house-of-lords-reform/overview/hereditarypeersremoved/> [accessed 21 March 2021]
9. Pogrund, Gabriel, and Tom Calver, ‘Revealed: The Truth About The Peers Who Are Born To Rule’, The Sunday Times, 20 March 2021 <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revealed-the-truth-about-the-house-of-lords-peers-who-are-born-to-rule-nbdvcfrv3> [accessed 21 March 2021]
10. Ibid
11. Ibid