Constitution
Rethinking Parliamentary Sovereignty
I used to be in the ‘Parliament is the highest court in the land’ camp and thus that there was no actual brake, other than convention, on Parliament, as it was supreme. And hence of course, so too was the leader of the executive (government) subsumed as he or she is, with the power of... Read more
Government Defends Hereditary Peers Even as Aristocrats Evade Vetting and Titles Go Entirely to Men
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Britain’s hereditary peers are avoiding crucial background checks, as the Government is refusing to let the House of Lords appointments commission conduct usual vetting processes before they join the second chamber.
Ninety one hereditary peers - all men - remain in the House of Lords, following a ‘fudge’ deal to push through piecemeal Lords reform in the late ‘90s. Each time one of them dies, they are replaced by another ‘elected’ by hereditary peers in the House who belong to the same political grouping.
For example, a Conservative hereditary peer who dies is replaced by another Conservative aristocrat, from a small list of those eligible to stand under a Register of Hereditary Peers. The list is almost entirely composed of men, as hereditary titles go first to the eldest surviving son, or other close male relative.
Lord Grocott, a Labour peer pushing for hereditary peerages to be scrapped, told the chamber on Wednesday: “The Lords commission does vet candidates for life peerages, but does not vet candidates in hereditary peer by-elections…[It] should be a level playing field [and] hereditary peers candidates should be treated exactly the same way as life peers.”
Following the death of Conservative Lord Brougham and Vaux, another male aristocrat was elected to the House of Lords last month. Just 38% of peers voted.
Don't miss a story
But the Cabinet Office minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, rejected any reform in her answer, saying: “The hereditary arrangements involve a by-election election process, which of course was established as part of the deal on House of Lords reform in the 90s.
“I think it would clash with the by-election process to introduce a vetting system for hereditaries. But in any event, I see that as part of the House of Lords reform and I think we made it clear that there are no plans for piecemeal reform.”
There are now over 800 peers, with more than one in ten coming from a tiny clique of hereditary male aristocrats by default.
The Conservatives now have around 100 more peers than Labour, after packing the chamber with party appointees since 2010.
But Baroness Neville-Rolfe downplayed the figures, saying: “Although the Conservatives now have a lot more peers than Labour, we still, we still do not win all votes. And we still only have 34% [of peers]. That's partly because of the number of crossbench peers.”
And the unelected politician also rejected calls - including from hereditary Tory peer Lord Cormack - to put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a firmer legal footing.
“I think we should be wary of giving even greater powers to unelected bodies, however great and however good, who are not necessary, who are not necessarily democratically elected…The government hasn't got any plans to change the status of the House of Lords Appointments Commission,” she said.
Labour’s frontbencher Barness Smith noted: “When she talks about piecemeal reform and not wanting piecemeal reform, what she's really saying is she will do absolutely nothing…After 13 years of a Labour Government, we had 24 more peers than the Conservative Party. After 13 years of Conservative Government, the Conservative Party has 100 more Conservative peers than Labour.”
EXCLUSIVE
The change means parties will now be allowed to spend over £30m in order to win a General Election
Josiah Mortimer
And she backed calls for HOLAC to vet hereditary peers, saying: “Wouldn't it be just a minor tweak suggested to hold like they also look at the suitability of candidates in this House, to ensure they are willing to come here and play a full role in the work like everybody here does?”
Even hereditary peer Lord Cromwell said: “We have nothing to fear from a vetting process. I think it's entirely appropriate that we all go through it.”
But minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe defended the handful of Conservative hereditary peers likely to try and block the move, saying: “Hereditaries are subject to quite a good deal of questioning during the by-election process, which is laid down by the standing orders of the House.
“We have no plans to change the vetting of hereditary peers, and of course they do play a very important role on the front benches. And right across bringing different aspects to our public, you know, public work and the public interest.”
The current hereditary by-election process currently comprises writing a one or two paragraph statement about why they should be ‘elected’ to join the House.
Labour’s Baroness Symons branded hereditary peerages “sexually discriminatory”, as titles still go first to a son. “If there is no son, they go to a collateral branch [e.g. cousins or more distant male relatives]. That is sexually discriminatory and I can’t see how she can argue [for] that,” she told the House.
Tory frontbencher Neville-Rolfe again rebuffed the calls for reform, only adding: “There will no doubt be reform in the future. And the nature of hereditary peers may or may not be considered.”
Following the by-election last month, Willie Sullivan, Director of National Campaigns at the Electoral Reform Society, said: "The House of Lords is a system from another time and demands reform. True democracy relies on everyone's voices being heard and without better efforts to reach equal gender representation in our parliaments we will not be able to achieve that. It is the 21st century, we do not need another male aristocrat given a job for life in the Lords."
He added: "We must do better and create a gender balanced, elected upper chamber to drag the Lords into the modern world."
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him...
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Outcry as Government Proposes Letting Brits ‘Vouch’ for Overseas Voters’ Identities – While Denying Same Chance for In-Person Voters Who Lack ID
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The Government has been accused of “corrupting democracy” as it pushes through legislation that will allow Brits living overseas to have their identity confirmed by an existing UK voter – while rejecting calls for the same rules to apply to in-person voters who lack photo ID.
A little-known piece of legislation – the Draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 – is currently sitting in Parliament after being drawn up by ministers, and does not require a parliamentary vote to pass.
It will allow overseas voters to have their identity vouched for by a currently-registered voter, when they sign up to vote abroad. Voters living here can already register this way, though the process is rarely used, and there are fears that relaxed rules for overseas voters could open the UK up to foreign interference and a flood of opaque donations.
Ministers have just raised the spending limit by 80% for general elections for political parties – again without a parliamentary vote – while separate legislation has scrapped the previous 15-year limit that people could live abroad and continue to be able to vote.
In theory, someone could have lived abroad for 50 years, with little evidence of where they used to vote – and a friend living in the UK could vouch that they were telling the truth about their eligibility to cast their ballot in a key swing seat.
Don't miss a story
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Chris Rennard is sounding the alarm about the plans, arguing that the so-called ‘attestation’ rules letting overseas citizens register to vote without firm documentation showing they used to live in the UK will enable Brits overseas to donate unlimited sums to political causes.
It comes after the Government controversially rejected calls from the Electoral Commission watchdog and democracy campaigners to let voters bring alternative forms of voter identification following May’s elections or to allow others to ‘attest’ to the identity of those who lack ID.
At least 14,000 voters were turned away from polling stations and denied a vote in England in May. There are fears as many as 100,000 people could be turned away in next year’s general election.
EXCLUSIVE
More than 100,000 voters could be turned away at the next General Election according to one forecast
Josiah Mortimer
“There is a clear pattern of this Government bending election rules in their favour," Lord Rennard told Byline Times. "Jacob Rees-Mogg admitted that the strict voter ID rules were a form of 'gerrymandering'.
“One way of helping to ensure that legitimate voters can participate in elections would be to allow 'attestation' at the polling stations. This work, for example, in Canada where voters with the requisite ID can 'vouch' for someone on the electoral roll but who is without the necessary photo ID. The Government has recently rejected this sensible proposal in order to limit participation.
“Such a process as attestation can be used to get on the electoral register and this may be crucial for registering more of the UK citizens who have been living overseas for more than 15 years.”
He believes the Government's motive for the change in overseas voter registration may be “principally linked to allowing unlimited donations from these people”.
“It seems wrong that a form of attestation may be used to register people to vote when there is no evidence of a previous address in the UK, whilst not allowing a similar process for people who are on the electoral registers but do not have the specific forms of Photo ID to vote at a polling station," he added.
“The Government is not bothered about the right to vote – it is concerned about raising big donations from people without stringent checks on the original sources of funding. This corrupts democracy."
A spokesperson for the Electoral Commission confirmed that so-called attestation rules would apply to oversees voters registering, but not those who lack ID and try to vote in person.
They said: “When applying to register, overseas voters will be able to supply an attestation of registration status from a qualifying voter, or an attestation of relevant address connection. We will be publishing our guidance with further detail in the coming weeks.
“Attestations are already an option for verifying a UK-based person’s identity in the process of registering to vote. It is not currently used in the voting process, but we recommended that the same principle could be extended to polling stations to vouch for those without ID. This would help to improve accessibility and support those people who do not have an accepted form of ID.”
Campaign group British in Europe has broadly welcomed the changes in a briefing.
There will be a limit of two people that a UK registered voter can ‘vouch’ for among overseas voters.
Revealed: Britain’s Broken Election Laws Just Got Even Worse
The Government has made it even easier for dark money, foreign influence, and the proceeds of crime to bankroll British politics
Peter Geoghegan
In practice, the short election timetable makes it hard for overseas voters to participate in UK votes, as the window for sending postal votes out and back from overseas is generally too tight. But voters including those overseas are now able to register for a postal vote online under a new government portal, making the overall process smoother.
Meanwhile, Labour peer Lord Khan of Burnley has filed an objection to the draft law saying it could “dangerously weaken the restrictions on overseas political donations and allow foreign money to enter our democracy”.
The new statutory instrument, or 'Henry VIII' order, will be debated on Wednesday in the House of Commons. The draft legislation can be read here.
The voter ID rules currently exclude several forms of ID used by young people, including Young Persons’ Railcards and some forms of student ID.
Labour refused to say whether it would repeal the ID requirements if in government, when asked by Byline Times earlier this year. The Lib Dems back repeal of the ID rules. The full list of acceptable IDs is published here.
Byline Times has extensively covered the voter ID roll-out and will be monitoring further developments.
ShoutOut UK and the Greater London Authority have launched a new WhatsApp chat bot to give advice on getting ID and registering to vote. Add +44 7908 820136 to use it.
The Department for Levelling Up was contacted for comment.
Update: This article was amended after publication to make it clear that the new online portal is for registering for a postal vote, not voting online.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him...
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Why shouldn’t MPs also have completely overt bank accounts?
This is 50 seconds of speech and incisiveness that is worth much more of your time, I suggest… For anyone unable to access the speech itself, this is the really devastating concluson: “Never in our history has the government intruded on the privacy of anyone’s bank account without any good reason. And now we’re treating... Read more