The Duke of Wellington (CB)

My Lords, I am very grateful to even be allowed to speak in this debate. I am one of the recent life peerages, but mine was granted when I was already 80, and I thought it surprising that the current Government would agree to my nomination. I am very pleased to follow my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter. In the debate on the hereditary Peers Act, I asked the Government not just to remove the hereditary Peers but also to carry out some other manifesto commitments, such as those on retirement and participation. I was therefore very pleased to hear in that debate the Leader of the House propose a committee to consider these matters, thus allowing me not to press my amendment on that point. As others have done, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the committee on writing this report, which I totally support. The phased retirement, starting in 2029, and the 20% participation requirement seem to me eminently sensible. When this matter is put to a vote, I will certainly vote in favour. However, I want to refer to two other matters to which I alluded in the earlier debate: namely, the removal of Peers for misconduct and the disturbing idea that peerages are apparently sometimes given to large donors to political parties. In the House of Commons, there is a mechanism for removing Members for misconduct. In the House of Lords, it is more complicated. Conviction of a crime and receiving a jail sentence of more than 12 months leads to expulsion, but breaking the Code of Conduct normally leads only to suspension for a number of months. In my opinion, this is not sufficient and therefore brings this House into disrepute. In the King’s Speech, the Government announced that they would introduce a Bill to remove peerages from disgraced Peers. I suggest to the Leader of the House that that she and the Prime Minister should instead consider a Bill to remove membership of this House from any Member who has misbehaved. The title in itself no longer carries an entitlement to sit in this House—look at all the hereditary Peers and life Peers who have retired. So, for the integrity of this House, there should be, if necessary, legislation to remove the right to sit in this House. The removal of titles could lead to unnecessary discussion of holders of peerages who are no longer Members of this House. It could be only a gesture. The Labour Party manifesto said: “Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them” and strengthen “the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”. It seems to me that this manifesto commitment could be fulfilled by the removal of the right to sit in this House, rather than the removal of the title. The other matter which has always concerned me is the apparent granting of a peerage to a donor of a large sum of money to a political party. We will all have noticed that Reform has specifically said that the two recent large donors would not be given peerages if Reform was ever in Government. It is regrettable that Reform felt it necessary to state that, and it shows, sadly, that the giving of peerages to party-political donors has, in some sense, become normalised. I hope all political parties could somehow agree to make it impossible for the impression ever to be created that membership of this House can be given in return for large donations. The report deals only with retirement and participation but should certainly be agreed. It is another step in the continuing reform of this House, of which I am so grateful and honoured still to be a Member.