The indifference that could end of one of Britain’s oldest titles

The honour of baronetcy is one of the most peculiar and, on the whole, little-understood hereditary honours in the Britain, yet this illustrious organisation of hereditary knights, whose predecessors actions were enough to merit honour (though not quite enough for a peerage) faces continuing threat of demise. One of the strangest ironies though is it’s not a threat from Parliament, or even necessarily from opponents of the honour, but rather very much from itself.

The baronetage seems to have its origins in the 14th century, though it wasn’t until the reign of James I that issuing of the honour became more prevalent. It was used as a means of creating an dignity that was just below the peerage, but ranking above commoner and was James’s way of raising money for his military campaign.

Baronets use the same title and style as an ordinary knight, prefixing ‘Sir’ to their names and wives of baronets prefixing “Lady” to their surname though the difference is once the holder dies, the honour is inherited. Although not very well know, this honour is associated with some perhaps better-known people. For example, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer – George Osborne – is the heir to a baronetcy, meaning he’ll one day be Sir George Osborne. Like most hereditary honours, almost all baronetcies can only pass in the male line. In the normal way of things, this would pose no threat to the existence of the institution of the baronetcy itself – this lifespan for the honour meant as old honours died out, new ones would be issued to others, thus keeping the numbers form inflating without end. However, since the complete halt on the granting of all hereditary honours outside of the Royal Family in the late twentieth century (and it being highly unlikely they will be granted again), the baronetage now suffers a unique problem. The last baronet to be created was for the husband of the late Baroness Thatcher in 1990, made Sir Denis Thatcher. Prior to that, no baronet was created since 1965.

According to the roll of baronetage (which lists all the baronets in existence and their holders), there are now only 1023 baronets left and over 240 baronetcies which have either not been claimed or are now extinct from the last few decades alone. Officially, anyone who does not register their title on the roll of baronetage is not acknowledged as a baronet, even if they have a rightful claim.

Exclusive research done by Royal Central shows, however, that by far the biggest danger to the baronetage is the increasing numbers of baronets who are turning their backs on the honour they inherit too as they choose not to claim them and the rate at which the baronetage is declining in membership has increased rapidly in recent decades. From 1990-2005 alone, 90 baronetcies have not been claimed and as proving succession becomes more difficult the longer the time since the death of the last claimant, most of these will now be lost in the mists of time, and with many of the 69 baronetcies unclaimed from the last ten years looking to go the same way.

The baronetcy confers no special rights like peerages traditionally did. There was no right to sit in the House of Lords and holders are only afforded precedence after sons of life barons and only just ahead of knights of the Thistle and there is no automatic right to supporters on a baronet’s coat of arms so the honour exists as just a title, less the privileges and rights enjoyed by some peers.

It is, however, not all doom-and-gloom as the future of the baronetcy could itself see a turn for the better in the form of efforts to create a law to allow females to succeed to hereditary titles.

Lord Trefgarne’s bill in the House of Lords seeks currently to allow females to succeed to peerages, though currently doesn’t encompass a provision for the baronetage – though it seems unthinkable that an amendment wouldn’t be included to do this since many peers involved in debating the bill will themselves be holders of baronetcies too. Ultimately, the survival of the baronetage will be determined by how long people are willing to act to preserve this ancient link with our past as a nation and also how long the baronets are willing to accept the honour.

Source: royalcentral.co.uk

House of Lords

The Lords work in Parliament’s second chamber – the House of Lords – and complement and operate alongside the business of the House of Commons. It is one of the busiest second chambers in the world. The expertise of its Members and flexibility to scrutinise an issue in depth means the Lords makes a significant contribution to Parliament’s work. The UK public does not elect Members of the Lords.

Making laws
Making laws takes up the bulk of the House of Lords time, and Members are involved throughout the process of proposing, revising and amending legislation. Some Bills introduced by the Government begin in the Lords to spread the workload between the two Houses.

Judicial work
The House of Lords is the highest court in the land: the supreme court of appeal. A group of salaried, full-time judges known as Law Lords carries out this judicial work.

Checking the work of government
Lords check the work of the Government by questioning and debating decisions made by ministers and government departments.

Specialist committees
There are permanent committees investigating work relating to Europe, science and technology, economics and the constitution. Occasionally one-off committees are set up to deal with issues outside these areas.

Source: www.parliament.uk

Erminegate: police called to examine corruption allegations in House of Lords

The Metropolitan police will today be urged to investigate whether two Labour peers broke the law after allegedly indicating to undercover reporters that they had used their influence to help to amend legislation in exchange for payments.

As the government admitted that the peers were facing "very grim" allegations, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said he would write to the police today to ask them to investigate whether bribery offences had been committed.

"If these allegations are confirmed, they are not merely a breach of the Lords' rules, but are surely also against the law on corrupt practices," Huhne said.

He intervened after the Sunday Times reported that Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott had admitted influencing legislation on behalf of clients. Their alleged comments were made to undercover reporters who claimed two other peers - Lords Moonie and Snape - were also allegedly willing to use their influence. All four peers deny wrongdoing.

The newspaper approached the four peers to ask them to help a fictitious Hong Kong businessman who was worried that the business rate and supplements bill would impose extra taxes on his business. The businessman was supposedly setting up 30 retail outlets across Britain. The newspaper reported that:

• Lord Taylor of Blackburn, a former BAE consultant, allegedly admitted that he had once helped to change the law on behalf of a client. The peer allegedly offered to conduct a "behind the scenes" campaign on behalf of the fictitious businessman to persuade ministers and officials. A £120,000 retainer was discussed. Taylor allegedly said: "I will work within the rules, but the rules are meant to be bent sometimes."

• Lord Truscott, a former energy minister, allegedly said he had helped an energy client worried about the energy bill. Truscott, who discussed a £72,000 fee, said he had to be a "bit careful" and could not table any amendments himself. He told the undercover reporters: "I can work with you over it ... identifying people and following it ... meeting people, talking to people to facilitate the amendment and making sure the thing is granted."

• Lord Moonie, a former defence minister, allegedly offered, in return for an annual fee of £30,000, to contact John Healey, the local government minister and to identify people who could amend the legislation;

• Lord Snape, a former government whip, allegedly offered to help for a fee of up to £24,000 a year. "Depending on who is on the Commons committee, if I had a chat I could see if I could get them to table an amendment in committee," he said.

Baroness Royall, the leader of the Lords, said she would look into the matter and she expected the cross-party Committee on Lords' Interests to conduct an investigation. She told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "These people were entrapped. If it is true, it is a very grim picture, but we do have to look into the details carefully. I am concerned that everybody's side of the story should be heard."

The House of Lords code of conduct states that peers "must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence". Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the Westminster sleaze watchdog the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said: "The allegations made are serious."

Lord Taylor said he had been approached by two people claiming to work for a lobbying firm who offered to take him on as an adviser at a fee of between £5,000 to £10,000 a month. "It was their suggestion, not my suggestion," he said. "I never said I would accept it."

Lord Moonie said he had an "informal conversation" about advising the lobbyists, but had not signed any contract. He told the Press Association: "Nobody in their right mind would offer direct help in making an amendment. But there is no reason why you shouldn't offer people advice in how you go about it."

Yesterday's report revived memories of the cash-for-questions saga which prompted allegations that John Major's government was tainted by sleaze. But Labour will point out that there are major differences: the four peers were entrapped by the Sunday Times and no money changed hands with the fictitious lobbyists.

If found guilty, the peers could be censured on the floor of the Lords and be stripped of the Labour whip. An act of parliament would have to be passed to strip them of their peerages.

The accused
• Lord Taylor of Blackburn, 79, was created a peer in 1978 by the then Labour prime minister, Jim Callaghan. A former BAE consultant, Taylor is close to Jack Straw, the justice secretary who has been MP for Blackburn since 1979. Taylor apologised last year for asking a question in the Lords without declaring its relevance to a client.

• Lord Truscott, 49, was created a peer in 2004 after serving as a Labour MEP from 1994-99. An expert on Russia, who has written a biography of Vladimir Putin, Truscott served as an energy minister from 2006-07.

• Lord Moonie, 61, was created a peer in 2005 reportedly after giving up his Commons seat so his friend Gordon Brown could keep his in a boundary change. An affable and popular figure at Westminster, Moonie was a clinical pharmacologist before becoming MP for Kirkcaldy in 1987. He served as defence minister from 2000-03.

• Lord Snape, 66, was appointed a peer in 2004 after standing down as Labour MP for West Bromwich East in 2001 after 27 years in the House. A former British railways signalman, Snape served as a government whip under Harold Wilson and Callaghan.

Source: The Guardian


No criminal charges for peers in sleaze row

Labour peers who allegedly agreed to accept fees in return for attempting to amend the law will not be subjected to a criminal investigation, Scotland Yard said today.

The Metropolitan Police was asked to investigate allegations of corruption against Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott of St James's after The Sunday Times recorded and filmed them discussing payments with undercover reporters.

Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who led the cash-for-honours investigation, met Baroness Royall of Blaisdon to discuss the issues and how his officers would go about their work.

The Met stressed that it was not investigating the peers but reviewing the allegations and the material to determine whether they merited a full criminal inquiry. Detectives also consulted with the Crown Prosecution Service which provided legal advice on the potential for a successful prosecution.

The Times understands that both police and prosecutors felt the case was hampered by the likelihood that the journalists could be accused of entrapment. Police were also advised that any statements made by the peers in the House of Lords could not be used against them in court because of parliamentary privilege.

A police spokesman said: "In summary, the application of the criminal law to members of the House of Lords in the circumstances that have arisen here is far from clear. In addition, there are very clear difficulties in gathering and adducing evidence in these circumstances in the context of Parliamentary Privilege.

"These factors, when set alongside the preliminary examination, lead us to the decision that the Metropolitan Police will not undertake a criminal inquiry into any of the allegations raised. Should any further evidence or information come to light then clearly we will be under a duty to review this decision."

According to The Sunday Times, whose reporters posed as lobbyists for a foreign company setting up a chain of shops in Britain, four peers — Lord Taylor; Lord Truscott, a former Energy Minister; Lord Moonie, a former Defence Minister; and Lord Snape, a former government whip — indicated that they were ready to help for money. All four deny that they have broken any rules.

The Met said it had looked at the issues concerning Lord Taylor and Lord Truscott in relation to the offences of bribery and misconduct in a public office.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman who referred the matter to the police, said: “I can understand the difficulties facing the police given the unreformed and unclear state of the law on bribery, which is subject to recent reform proposals from the Law Commission. However, this is a disappointing decision because it is simply false to say that internal procedures will be able to deal with these cases given that there is not even a mechanism for expelling miscreants."

Ken Clarke, the Shadow Business Secretary, said that if the allegations were proven they amounted to offences of corruption.

The case is the latest in a series involving politicians which have been examined by police but not resulted in any charges.

Peter Hain, the former Cabinet minister, was investigated over the late declaration of donations to his Labour deputy leadership campaign. It was announced in December that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him but he was later criticised by the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee for "serious and substantial" failures.

In March last year the Met announced that it would not conduct an investigation into Derek Conway, the Conservative MP who used his parliamentary allowances to pay members of his family. Scotland Yard said at the time that "the lack of systems to account for MPs expenses would severely undermine the viability of any criminal investigation leading to a prosecution".

Two other police inquiries into political life are still ongoing. Scotland Yard is still investigating the case against Damian Green, the Conservative frontbencher arrested during an investigation into Home Office leaks. The CPS is reviewing police files in the case of David Abrahams, the property developer who routed £650,000 of donations to the Labour Party through friends and associates.

Source: Times online

Lords' membership cut considered

Membership of the House of Lords could be almost halved under proposals to replace peers with elected members.
The Financial Times says a cross-party working group is considering if there should be fewer than 400 represented in a reformed upper chamber.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who is leading the review, has said a "comprehensive reform package" would be in Labour's next election manifesto.

A White Paper of proposals is due to be published before the summer recess.

Reform commitment

Last year MPs voted for either a wholly or 80% elected upper chamber.

The Lords want to keep the current system of an all-appointed membership.

The FT reports that there was still debate over whether hereditary peers would be removed from the house immediately, and the details of election to the new chamber.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We will be bringing forward proposals for House of Lords reform in due course. We hope to publish a White Paper before the summer recess."

Last summer, Mr Straw said he was committed to reform but conceded there was still "some way to go" and stressed the need for consensus.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both supported reform of the Lords.

Source: BBC