House of Lords (Alternative Second Chamber) Bill [HL]

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and to express my entire agreement with him that we have to take the Bill forward. First, may I briefly add to what all noble Lords have already said about the excellent way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, introduced the Bill and the ingenuity of the approach that has been taken. Because it is a very narrow Bill, I have only eight points that I want to raise—do not sigh, this is a lawyer speaking, so they are bound to be long.

The first is a lawyer’s point. The Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, so ably pointed out, is about replacement. Should we consider that the consultation should include reform? There was a debate about the difference between replacement and reform when, in 2003, the then Government announced their desire to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor. They found that too difficult and thought reform was better. I very much hope that we will look on this as a Bill about both a completely different alternative and reform. When this Bill comes to Committee—I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that it will need one—we must realise the dangers of using the manifesto term of “replacement” rather than a more elegant parliamentary term that can enable wider consultation and debate. A reformed House of Lords could be very similar to a replaced second Chamber, but it would get rid of the arguments that have been made about the scope of the Bill. That is the only lawyer’s point I want to make.

Secondly, I too feel that the position we are in with this House is untenable. We must remember what western democracies face. We have to engage in the debate across Europe or North America about the need to safeguard our democracies. It seems to me that we can, by dealing with an untenable position in our democracy, demonstrate two things: that we are resilient, and that we have the will and ability to bring about change. By getting this debate under way, we will demonstrate that we are interested in showing, particularly to the younger generation, that a democracy can, in a major respect, reform itself.

Thirdly, there is the argument of self-interest. This was demonstrated in the way that we managed to fail to deal with the hereditary Peers—if we do not do something, someone will do it for us, which we will not like.

Fourthly, I have enormous respect for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He is right that this would ordinarily be something on which one would expect a royal commission or some other commission to come up with something that was broadly acceptable. But we have failed for more than 100 years. Why do we not ask the people what they think, where experts have not been able to come up with a viable solution?

Fifthly, it seems to me that, as shown in the very impressive paper produced by the Library, there are real practical difficulties. Everyone knows—the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has spoken of them—the problems in trying to come up with a way to reform, so we need the broadest possible input. There are real difficulties and there is always the prospect that, if you consult widely, you might conclude that our present Chamber is the least worst form of second Chamber that you can have. I hold that out as a hope to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, because it may be that, on examination, there is no better solution than what we have. I think that will not be the case, but it is always possible, and it is no excuse for denying a proper examination.

Sixthly, there is the form of consultation. What is at stake is not our generation, but the younger generation. We must find a means of consultation that will get to them. I leave that to the experts; I know nothing about how you communicate effectively in that way, but when one speaks to the younger generation at universities and schools, they are interested. It is absurd to say that they do not care. We must make them care. They do care because the future of our democracy depends on it, so I look forward to seeing the ingenuity of experts in this area to ensure that there is proper consultation with the youth.

Then there is a point that noble Lords might think odd coming from me: there is a manifesto commitment. It is very odd for a democracy that we do not take a very simple manifesto commitment, namely consultation, forward. What faith can you have in a Government who say that they are going to do something that is vital to democracy, but do not do it? I think the Bill ought to be taken forward for that reason.

Lastly, I have said nothing about the alternatives. There are many here more expert who can come up with those. I believe we should trust the people. Politicians always tell me that that is what we should do. Why do we not do so?