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 (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

I look forward to hearing the case for Amendments 81 and 85 in due course. This Bill does not go far enough, and we must ensure that there is a firm commitment to further reform. My Amendment 71 does just that—and perhaps even passes the “sensible and limited” test previously referenced by the noble Lord, Lord True. Therefore, I urge His Majesty’s Government to be transparent and brave with their plans to reform this House. I hope they see this as a reasonable amendment that helps us get to the end of the Bill. I beg to move.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for being absent from the Chamber earlier, when I was attending the European Affairs Select Committee. At Second Reading, I said that I thought the Bill should be allowed to pass largely unamended, and I said that with great sadness. However, since Second Reading, many noble Lords from all sides of the House have told me that, in their opinion, it is unlikely that the Government will take Lords reform any further. That is regrettable. There is considerable support for further reforms from throughout the House, and I think it would be sensible for the Government to introduce further reforms.

Of course, other reforms were also in the Labour Party manifesto. Matters such as minimum participation were mentioned in the manifesto. I realise that a retirement age has become controversial, but the handling of misconduct by Members was also in the manifesto.

The sole purpose of my Amendment 81, which I hope the Government will at least consider, is to require the Government to go to the next stage of reform within 24 months. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has put six months, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has put 18 months, but I have put 24 months to give the Government more time. I have purposely not specified what reforms should be in the next piece of legislation because I well understand that the Leader— I am so pleased that she is in her place—wishes to consult extensively on these matters.

We have discussed at some length in Committee possible further reforms and, as I said earlier, the manifesto included certain specific further reforms. It is right that these matters should be considered, probably outside this Chamber, by wise heads and at a sensible pace, but it would not be correct for Ministers to say to the country that by removing the hereditary Peers they have completed reform of the House of Lords. They should be more ambitious and find a way to bring here men and women prepared to undertake public service in this House and—this is the important point—who would be unlikely to be nominated by party-political leaders.

I ask the Government to consider Amendment 81. I do not believe that the other place would necessarily object to it. Although I am sure that it will reject many other amendments that may or may not be passed on Report, this amendment could find favour in the other place. I hope Ministers will consider it.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[The Duke of Wellington]

81: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Further reform of the composition of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for further reform of the composition of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a further bill to reform the House of Lords after the removal of hereditary peers.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I say to the Leader that I should like to reserve the right to table the amendment again on Report.

Amendment 81 not moved.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Duke of Wellington]

8: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Further reform of the composition of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for further reform of the composition of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a further bill to reform the House of Lords after the removal of hereditary peers.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Altmann, for signing the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would have done so if she had been in time.

I have stated in previous debates that although I will be immeasurably sad to leave, I do not feel able to oppose the Bill. I have always recognised that the matter was in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech, and was passed by the House of Commons unamended. But before I and others leave, I want to try to persuade His Majesty’s Ministers to go a little bit further than the Leader has already indicated.

I suspect that some of the reforms—for which there is probably quite wide support in this House—will require legislation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is being a bit pessimistic about the risk of legislation coming from this House to the House of Commons on reforming some of its aspects. If it comes having reached a consensus in this House, I think it very likely that the Leader would be able to persuade her ministerial colleagues that the Government should back it in the House of Commons.

The Leader announced earlier in the debate that she was proposing to recommend that the House sets up a Select Committee, but she initially referred only to it considering retirement and participation. I suggest that there are other matters in the manifesto, and indeed other matters still, that ought to be considered by the Select Committee, such as the removal of disgraced Members, an improvement in the regional balance—a very good point—and of course the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on the size of the House. I believe that there is considerable support across the House for a number of those reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It does not, because that is not the legislation we are talking about. That is a decision of this House, and I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House. I have faith in your Lordships’ House, so it does not apply, and I think the commission has said that in relation to those officeholders and future officeholders as well. If, at some point in the future, this House took a different decision, I would oppose it very strongly—I think it would be totally the wrong decision, and I find it impossible to consider that it would happen. But when it comes to legislation, it is the case that one Parliament does not bind another. Indeed, I think his party has changed its mind on the Grocott Bill from the last Parliament to this one, so we do see changes as we move forward.

My impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the House wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us knows our longevity in any position or any place, but we are talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised this issue with me. I would have thought that a Select Committee could be up and running very soon after Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply. I think the terms of reference are quite clear: there are two specific issues. I understand what other Members have said about the need to broaden this out, but the danger there is that we do not get anywhere —which has happened time and again. The House has to make a decision: does it wish to make further progress or not? I think and hope it does. I want to, and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed comments on my Amendment 8. I must admit that I have not quite persuaded the Leader to go as far as I had hoped she might, but I have to accept—and I know that she spoke in total good faith—that it is her intention that we should carry out further reforms. She believes the best way to do it is through a Select Committee, which, as she just said, could be prior or leading to legislation, and I must take her words as she just stated them. I hope that all her government colleagues sitting next to her on the Bench have heard what she said—including, if I am not mistaken, the Attorney-General, which is very good.

So I thank the Leader again for her efforts to move to where I hoped she would be, with a categorical assurance that there would be a second Bill. She certainly tried and, in that spirit, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.