Written by Henrietta Appleton, Policy Officer (England)
In all the media coverage of farmers and land managers protests over the additional burdens placed on them by changes to tax rules, the impact of the Iran War on input costs, an accelerated reduction in BPS, the ban on trail hunting and possible licensing of game shooting and the halting and relaunch of the Sustainable Farming Incentive, there is one feature that has stood out. A feeling of a lack of understanding of the rural way of life and the interwoven complexities of its constituent factors.
The election of a significant number of Labour MPs in rural constituencies was seen as a risk to the country way of life rather than necessarily rural economies, as whilst some may have knowledge of rural issues, few are deeply embedded in the rural way of life (indeed this concern is likely to apply to most MPs). However their clustering into influential groups such as the Rural Parliamentary Labour Party and the Labour Rural Research Group has had some influence over policy although the principal oversight of policy direction affecting rural working lives is likely come down to the select committees such as EFRA and Environmental Audit Committee, and the Upper House, the House of Lords.
And this brings me on to the title of this blog.
The run up to the prorogation of parliament between 29th April and 6th May, will see the final few days of hereditary peers presence in the House of Lords. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 18th March, meant that they are no longer entitled to sit after the end of the current parliamentary session.
Whatever your feelings on birth providing you with a right to sit in the Upper House, there is perhaps one aspect that has been overlooked. Many of the hereditary peers are landowners, land managers and/or farmers (sometimes alongside other professions) or have retired from such positions. They presented during the debates on the Agriculture and Environment Acts some very pertinent considerations such as chalkstream conservation and soil health, some of which were adopted, and led the demands on the last Government to reverse their decision to relax the nutrient neutrality rules. They understand the trade-offs that land management entails and the interwoven nature of its role in rural communities.
There are several life peers who have farming and land management expertise but the strength of feeling that can be generated by the remaining few means that the force of their arguments through sheer numbers will be diluted.
Whilst some may say that unelected hereditary politicians are unaccountable in that they can neither be removed by people nor government, it is that independence that allows them to speak out, sometimes against party lines if they feel something is wrong, even if it may not be populist. In the scale of overall government this perhaps uncomfortable check can be a very valuable thing.
The hereditary peers may not be peerless, but as a peer group they have played a valuable role in rural policy that will be sorely missed.