House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, it is not a comfortable sensation for a hereditary Peer to be speaking in this debate. As I have said before, it is a great privilege to have performed a public service as a Member of this Chamber, and I will certainly be very sad to leave. However, I do not oppose this Bill. It was in the Labour Party manifesto, it was in the King’s Speech, and it has passed through the House of Commons unamended, so I conclude that the Government have every right to bring forward this legislation, and it must be allowed to pass.

However, the Government can be criticised for not yet committing to a second Bill to enact other reforms to the House of Lords promised in the Labour Party manifesto. To quote from that manifesto:

“Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age”.


I realise that this point has become contentious and that the Government are now consulting on it, but it is not unreasonable to have a retirement age, and it should be done in such a way as to avoid a mass exodus at the end of any Parliament. The Government should also consider a maximum term of years for membership of this House. Appointing someone in their 20s or 30s and giving them the right to remain for life does not seem reasonable.

I quote again from the Labour Party manifesto:

“Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them, and we will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.


I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the two meetings which a number of us had with her last week. However, I would like to press her on when the Government will introduce legislation on a participation requirement and the removal of disgraced Peers. I realise that it is difficult for Ministers ever to commit to the timing of future legislation, but could she not at least say that those manifesto commitments will be legislated for before the end of this Parliament? It would not be right for the Government to pretend or claim at the next election that they have reformed the House of Lords simply by removing the hereditary Peers.

Although it was not in the Government’s manifesto, I ask the Leader of the House, and the leaders of the other political parties, to consider how to prevent those who donate large sums to a political party being given a peerage by that party. The Leader of the House would have support across the Chamber for some of these other measures, and the Government should have the courage to prepare a second Bill. However, I completely accept that this Bill cannot and will not be expanded.

All of us who believe in the important role which this House performs in the legislative process of this country also believe that there are other necessary reforms. I am not at all certain that a House composed solely of Members recommended to the monarch by the Prime Minister of the day, or through him or her by the other party leaders, will persuade the public that the composition of this House is wholly appropriate in this century. Surely it must be right to give the House of Lords Appointments Commission greater power and prevent a Prime Minister ignoring a negative HOLAC opinion. HOLAC should at least have a power of veto and be able to opine on suitability as well as propriety.

I will not oppose this Bill, and I am most unlikely to vote in favour of any amendments. However, I urge the Leader of the House and her ministerial colleagues to commit to a further Bill to reform this House of Lords, of which I am so honoured and privileged still to be a Member.

House of Lords Reform

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for proposing this debate. From the debate, it is quite clear that many in this House desire to reform the House of Lords, particularly the process by which Members arrive here. I wish to limit my remarks purely to the hereditary Peers Bill, which is still passing through the House of Commons and which will probably arrive here in the New Year.

I feel extremely privileged to be here and have very much enjoyed my service—I do indeed consider it a public service—and I understand that it is difficult to justify that a seat in this House can be obtained by inheritance. However, I cannot allow this debate to pass without saying that seats in this House obtained through donations to political parties are even more difficult to justify, and I think that the political parties ought to address that problem as well.

I know that there are some noble Lords who consider that it might be possible to resist, filibuster or in some way delay the hereditary Peers Bill when it arrives. I am not of that view. The Bill was in the Labour Party manifesto. It was in the speech from the Throne. It will pass in the House of Commons with a large majority. For the House of Lords to be seen to be in any way opposing or delaying it would be unseemly and would not reflect well on the reputation of this House.

In recent years, we have amended various pieces of legislation and have often had the public on our side, but on this one, if the public are remotely interested, I do not believe they will support the continuation of hereditary Peers in this House. I will personally be very sad to leave, and I believe that many hereditary Peers have rendered dutiful, selfless and hard-working service, but the general election has elected a Government with a huge majority to remove us, and they must have their way.

It might interest noble Lords if I quote from a speech made in this House in May 1846 by the first Duke of Wellington. The subject of the debate was the repeal of the corn laws. The first Duke was at the time the Leader of the House of Lords. He stated that the measure was in the speech from the Throne and had been passed by a majority of the House of Commons. He further stated that it had

“been agreed to by the other two branches of the Legislature”.

In such a situation, he declared, the House of Lords is

“entirely powerless; without the House of Commons and the Crown, the House of Lords can do nothing ”.—[Official Report, 28/5/1846; col. 1404.]

So in 1846, long before the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and long before the Salisbury/Addison convention, the first Duke as Leader of the House believed that the House should pass that particular Bill whatever the personal preferences of the ultras on the right wing of the Conservative Party. That is more or less my view today on the hereditary Peers Bill. When it comes to us, I will react accordingly, and I hope that those Members wishing in any way to obstruct the Bill will allow it to pass.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to speak in this debate, to pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. This country, and the whole Commonwealth, are most fortunate that the Queen’s consort has served their people so well. As many have said, after a difficult childhood the Prince served with distinction in the Second World War. When he married, he remained in the Navy until that was no longer possible. From that moment on, he served the Crown, the country and the Commonwealth with an unflinching sense of duty. He was energetically active, giving his support to countless good causes, some of which were not yet fashionable, such as the environment and the education of engineers. He had a remarkable talent for getting into the detail of so much with which he was connected.

The founding of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme has rightly been mentioned by many noble Lords, but there were many other activities and causes, here and abroad, which he did so much to help and encourage. For example, he took very seriously his duties as chancellor of the Universities of Cambridge and Edinburgh and, previously, the Universities of Wales and Salford. This morning, I received from the director-general of the Royal United Services Institute—of which I am a trustee—an interesting quote from a lecture the Duke gave in the 1980s. He said the idea that the military profession

“is somehow not comparable with law, engineering or medicine or that it should rank below … subjects so popular in most universities, strikes me as entirely ludicrous.”

That demonstrates his great interest, not only in the Armed Forces but in university education.

I also received this morning another quote, showing a completely different aspect of the Duke’s interests, from the deputy ranger of Windsor Great Park. It shows his great interest in arboriculture:

“We are enjoying the gardens and avenues and amenities planted by previous generations and it is because I feel myself to be a temporary custodian that I am planting for future generations.”


The Duke aroused enormous loyalty and affection in all those who worked with him. He brought enormous strength to the Crown and travelled throughout the Commonwealth to an unprecedented degree. He set an example to all of public service to the nation and to the Commonwealth. As the Prince of Wales has said, he was “a very special person”. The whole country has benefited from his long tour of duty at the centre of our affairs. May he rest in peace.

EU Referendum: Voter Registration

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, I think the answer is in the question—Glastonbury. The noble Lord should get a group of your Lordships together, appear on stage and sing, “No Satisfaction Unless There’s Registration”—I am sorry, that is an end of term joke. Ministers have written to universities and sixth-form colleges to encourage them to promote voter registration ahead of the deadline. In addition, the Government are working with organisations such as Universities UK, the Association of Colleges, Bite The Ballot, UpRising and other youth organisations to help ensure young people are registered in time for the EU referendum.

[The Duke of Wellington (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the council of King’s College London. I am so pleased that the Minister mentioned universities. Does she agree that it is particularly important that university students, who have the option of registering where they study or getting a postal vote from home, know how important it is that they get a vote for the referendum?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I could not agree more with my noble friend. Students are now able to register at both term-time and home addresses in just three minutes. It can be done, as we know, on a smartphone, PC or tablet device. Since June 2014, more than 4 million applications to register to vote have been received from people between the ages of 16 and 24, and 3 million of those were made online.