House of Lords Reform

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years, probably longer than anyone else in this debate, and I believe that the House of Lords, for all its faults over the years, provides a balance to an elected Chamber. I am afraid to say that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) misses the point of the House of Lords. We do not want another elected Chamber to rival the House of Commons. We need a house of experts—or elders, if you like, Sir John—people with knowledge, expertise and experience who have served this country over many decades in different walks of life.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

In a moment. We need also those who represent continuity. Sir John, you will know better than most that continuity is the foundation of the success of this nation. To ignore what has gone on in the past and to lose all that continuous wisdom from the ages is pure vandalism. We do not want another elected set of politicians who we know will be, effectively, appointed by party headquarters—the leader’s favourites will be put on some list and put into the House of Lords, even though many of them would prefer to be in the House of Commons—as a second set of politicians.

I want a House of Lords that is depoliticised in many ways, so I am not keen on the fact that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have put so many people into the Lords who were friends of the leader at the time, or special advisers to Ministers and suchlike. What I want to see is more people who are truly representative of the whole country but can provide knowledge, expertise and experience to make our parliamentary democracy stronger and better.

It cannot be right that a political party that came third at the last general election has zero representation in the House of Lords. There are 80 Lib Dem peers, yet their party received 600,000 fewer votes than Reform UK. The Greens, I believe, have three representatives—

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Two.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Two? Okay. Plaid Cymru also has representatives. The Democratic Unionist party has six, but only five MPs. The thing is disproportionate. There should at least be representation of all political parties. Based on the votes at the last election, there certainly need to be a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords.

[Mike Martin]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because there is just so much to feast upon there in one intervention. Just to draw out an inconsistency in his speech, he likes experts and history—I like them as well—yet he says that we should have an upper Chamber that is based on the votes at the last election. Presumably, those would be appointed by the parties, so how does he intend to balance those two tensions?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member will know that the way it works in the House of Lords is that it is based on party appointments. The Prime Minister will make nominations; so will the Leader of the Opposition; so will the leader of the Liberal Democrats; so will the leader of the Greens. They will nominate a sprinkling of new peers every so often, usually once a year. Well, where was the invitation for the leader of Reform UK to nominate a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords? The hon. Member must surely accept that that is very wrong when we consider that Reform UK was the third largest party in terms of votes at the last election.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will in a moment. I go back to my original argument: we are getting this wrong. We will regret the day that we become just one of two elected Chambers. We will regret that day. It will create a rivalry between two sets of elected politicians, who will both claim to be truly representative of the people who have put them there, instead of having the primacy of the elected House of Commons—ultimately, we are elected by the people of this country and we can make the final decision through the Parliament Acts. At the end of the day, we do not actually have to be obedient to the House of Lords.

What I do know is that, within the House of Lords, there is an opportunity to have people with enormous knowledge and expertise, whether they are former Cabinet Ministers, former ambassadors or high commissioners, heads of industry, heads of trade unions or representatives of the different faith groups. It is good to have people like that. It is right that we still have the established Church of England represented through the bishops; although, these days, they are rather more to the left than I would like, they still represent the established Church of this country.

[Dr Opher]

I thought that, in Reform’s manifesto, it was going to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a much smaller, more democratic second Chamber.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Well, I did not stand on that manifesto. I joined Reform UK after that manifesto. I can tell the hon. Member now that that is not our policy today. We are not going to abolish the House of Lords. We are not going to engage in constitutional vandalism.

Throughout the ages, we have evolved our constitutional and parliamentary democracy in a way that has given us strength and continuity, and has allowed us to change not in some radical direction, whereby minorities and people with vested interests can finish up controlling the institutions of this country, but in a way that is evolution rather than revolution. There is no requirement to abolish the House of Lords. There should not be an elected second Chamber.

New Zealand got rid of its second Chamber, so it has only one elected Chamber. I would prefer that, frankly, to a second load of politicians in the House of Lords who wish that they were MPs, but could not get there, so they were put in place by their friends in party headquarters. We do not want that. If we eventually do abolish the upper House, frankly it would be better just to have one Chamber than to have a second elected Chamber, because there would be rivalry between the two.

Look at it like this: if we choose carefully, change the system and make it more meritocratic in terms of experience, knowledge and the kind of people who we really want in the House of Lords, we will be buying in expertise at low cost. Otherwise, we will be paying consultants and experts that work for companies to do an effective job of scrutinising legislation. What is the point of that when we can give someone a peerage? That could be someone with vast knowledge, perhaps someone who has been an ambassador to another country, headed up an important institution or contributed to the establishment of an amazing charity, and who has vast knowledge from that. It could be someone like Sebastian Coe, the Olympic gold medallist who went on to run the London Olympics in 2012. Those people have value, but they will not stand for election, so we would lose all of them—[Interruption.] Well, they would not stand for election to the Lords.

As I say, we would lose good people. The great and the good would go and we would finish up, as I said earlier, with people who want to be politicians but would have to settle for being second-best. That is not good enough. We should do what we have always done in this country and allow our constitution and our parliamentary democracy to change—yes, change by all means—in a gentle and evolutionary way, so that we do not get rid of a tried and tested system that has lasted for generations and, with all its faults, done this country rather well over the centuries.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I shall call the Front Benchers from 5.10 pm. As you can see, a lot of people are standing, which gives you a feel for how long you have got. So, it is three or four minutes each, I am afraid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate.

When I became an MP more than five years ago, I entered this place with a very open mind about most things, which is perhaps just as well, including about to the role of the House of Lords. I did not feel strongly about the other place one way or the other, but since I have been an MP, I have developed not only a greater understanding of what the Lords do and how they do it, but quite a deep respect for the important role that they play in our democracy. I am supportive of a second Chamber. I believe in an upper House. It scrutinises and revises. It brings fresh eyes, new ideas and, if I may be so bold, decades of experience and expertise. It can make our legislation stronger and our democratic process more robust.

There have been many examples of that over the years. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was strengthened in the Lords, where an amendment introduced a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, closing a gap that had let abusers escape charges. Similarly, Cross-Bench and Opposition peers spearheaded amendments to create a powerful new corporate criminal offence to prevent fraud in the Economic Crime Act and Corporate Transparency 2023, in a significant moment in the fight against economic crime. That is what good revision looks like. It is responsible lawmaking.

However, I come to this debate with direct experience of when the second Chamber has sadly not behaved responsibly or appropriately. As the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill—I think it is fair to say a reasonably well-known piece of legislation, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—I ended up spending a significant amount of time in the Lords.

Following months and months of hard work in the Commons, including countless meetings with outstanding civil servants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, a comprehensive Bill Committee that heard from nearly 50 witnesses, and powerful and emotional debates on Second and Third Readings, the Bill made its way to the Lords. It had had over 100 hours of scrutiny. It was examined line by line. It was amended and strengthened, and it passed the elected Chamber with a clear majority on both occasions. Yet despite a clear majority of elected MPs, having engaged at length with their constituents and taken the issue extremely seriously, voting to send the Bill to the other place, what happened next was not what most MPs, however they voted—and more importantly, the public—either expected or deserved.

I was very grateful to the peers who engaged in meaningful scrutiny and discussion about the Bill, and there were many of those. I was in awe at times of their experience and expertise, and it was a pleasure working with them. In some instances we disagreed, but we did so respectfully. Myself and Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the Bill in the other place, were open to making changes to strengthen the legislation. There were amendments that we were happy to accept, and we engaged with peers in good faith. However, nearly 1,200 amendments were tabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, around half of them came from just seven peers. Looking at the content of many of those amendments, which were inappropriate and at times cruel, it was clear to many that some peers intentionally used every tool at their disposal to bring the legislative process to a standstill.

As we know, the other place, unlike the Commons, is self-regulating. There are no selection of amendments or time limits, so every amendment tabled is likely to be debated. There was seemingly a desire from some peers to slow the process down and disrupt the usual legislative process. In the House of Commons we did our job, but given the shocking example of the amendments tabled in the House of Lords, the same simply cannot be said of the other place.

One peer spoke for four hours and 41 minutes. That is longer than “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” extended edition—a great film, but not the most succinct piece of cinema. I say that not to be disrespectful to the other place, but to ask a simple question: was that responsible behaviour and were Members there fairly and professionally carrying out their role as the second Chamber? I think not.

Then there is the cost. The Lords debate on the Bill cost the taxpayer over £1.7 million in attendance allowances—public money spent so that a Bill could go nowhere. The public have every right to expect good value from their institutions because we work for them. I do not think that anyone can say with a clear conscience that that was a good use of taxpayers’ money.

We also have to look at the make-up of the Chamber: 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. I have no problem with religion per se, but nobody elected them. They sit solely because of the position they hold. The only other country in the world that gives clerics seats in its legislature in that way is Iran. In a modern, multi-faith, increasingly secular society, is that fit for purpose? We need a second Chamber that supports and challenges.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Is the hon. Lady also calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England? Is she asking that the cross be taken off the Crown so that the Christian foundations of this country are no longer part of our constitutional arrangements?

[Kim Leadbeater]

If I may say so, it is quite a leap of faith to go from the comments I was making about the unelected Chamber to the Church of England, for which I have the utmost respect. I have worked with many people of faith on an agenda around cohesion and the need to bring our communities together—something that I am sure the hon. Member would fully support.

In a multi-faith and increasingly secular society, is it right to have unelected faith leaders in our second Chamber? The Prime Minister himself said:

“I don’t think we can justify half of our national legislature being unelected. I think this is something that is, in many ways, quite scandalous… If you want to cut the cost of politics, that’s the first place to look.”

He has also spoken about his desire to rewire how power works in this country, but we surely cannot do that without looking at the role of the House of Lords. I agree with the Prime Minister and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: we need a national commission into the future of the House of Lords. I am pleased to speak in support of that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) both on the way he opened this debate and on how he chairs the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform.

The Liberal Democrats have called for a democratic second Chamber for decades. We simply believe that those who make the law should, at some point, be accountable to those who have to obey it. In the other place, that link does not exist. People across the country understand that; they see a Chamber filled by prime ministerial appointment, where a seat in our legislature can follow years of party loyalty or a generous donation. That system ingrains patronage. It feeds the sense that politics is run by and for a small elite and it is one of the reasons why so many people have lost faith in our democratic institutions.

In her excellent speech earlier, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) mentioned the Lords Spiritual—the 26 Church of England bishops who take their seats in the other place. It is not an excessive understatement to say that that arrangement feels a bit outdated. Britain today is a country of many faiths and none, and nobody should have a hand in making our laws simply because of the religious office they hold. It is surely long past time to modernise.

Peers may also be appointed because they are seen to be experts within a field. However, as there is currently no time limit on how long they sit within the Lords, someone could indeed have been an expert in something 40 years ago, but the field has moved on vastly. Yet they still legislate in that area and are viewed as a specialist.

Some say that this issue is not a priority; it does not come up often on the doorstep. But a quick look at my inbox shows that some of my Hazel Grove constituents do indeed care about it enough to contact their MP. I have had constituents write to me about this, including most recently Kellie from Offerton, who argued powerfully that we should have an elected second Chamber. I agree with her.

The Lib Dems supported the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Nobody can seriously defend a place in Parliament being handed down through a family line.

[Andrew Rosindell]

On that basis, would the hon. Lady abolish Royal Assent for Bills? Does she accept that our constitution is the King in Parliament—the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons? Is she actually arguing for the abolition of the monarchy?

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman has extended himself several times this afternoon—and I, for one, am here for it. There are many things I would change about the way our country runs. If we were designing a country from scratch, I do not think we would have a Parliament or a monarchy like this. The monarch and the royal family do an important job in all sorts of ways, but I would very much change the relationship between Parliament and the monarch. To answer his question, yes I would.

Removing the remaining hereditary peers on its own does not go anywhere near far enough. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) tabled an amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to replace every unelected Member with a fully elected Chamber. Sadly, neither the Labour nor Conservative party supported that, which feels like a missed opportunity to begin the transition. We continue to see events that highlight why we should have an elected and accountable second Chamber. The Mandelson scandal has shown how poorly the current Chamber copes when a Member appointed for life has lost the public’s trust.

According to an Electoral Commission study from 2025, only 14% of respondents trusted politicians. We must all work to improve that level of trust; increasing accountability in Parliament feels like an important place to start. In February, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. Ministers told the public that reform was urgent and that they were talking to other parties. The Removal of Peerages Bill was included in the last King’s Speech, yet we are still to see any wide-scale reform. Can the Minister confirm if, and when, we should expect to see legislation to produce reform in the House of Lords—including, but not limited to, the Removal of Peerages Bill?

The Representation of the People Bill could have been a good place to start to make vital reforms to the way the second Chamber works. It contains welcome measures including votes at 16, steps towards automatic voter registration and a U-turn on the independence of the Electoral Commission—all changes that the Lib Dems have campaigned for. But it says nothing about the Lords or proportional representation, and far too little about the money that flows into our politics.

We want the Government to stop tinkering at the margins and to make the real changes needed to fix the broken political system in which we currently operate. They could take steps now: implement the 2017 Burns report; bring the House of Lords down to 600 Members; introduce the retirement age for peers that Labour promised in its own 2024 manifesto; put the ministerial code into law so that Ministers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The question of House of Lords reform is obviously not new; successive Administrations of all political colours have grappled with it for decades—indeed, for more than a century. They have discovered that constitutional upheaval tends to be far easier to promise in opposition than to deliver successfully in government.

The history reminds us of a fundamental truth: constitutional reform must always be approached with care, caution, balance and a clear understanding of the consequences. We would all agree that the House of Lords is far from perfect—certainly, no one from the official Opposition would suggest otherwise—but it performs a vital constitutional function. It provides thorough legislative scrutiny, brings into Parliament unmatched expertise from the law, science, business and public service, and holds Ministers to account.

Crucially, the House of Lords serves as a vital check on the Executive, ensuring that legislation is properly stress tested and challenging Governments when they get things wrong. Having been a member of the Government Whips Office before the last election, I can say that that is not always convenient for Governments, but it is a core constitutional function. Any sensible reform must preserve and enhance that scrutiny, and never dismantle it purely for political convenience or advantage. That is where we have serious concerns about the Government’s approach.

As has been said, in its 2024 manifesto Labour declared that the House of Lords was too large and promised to reduce its numbers; since then, the Government’s actions have told a rather different story. Even after expelling the hereditary peers, the House of Lords has about 800 Members—more than when the Government first declared that it was bloated. Apparently, the second Chamber is too big unless Downing Street happens to be the one packing the red Benches. I hope the Minister can explain that contradiction. Appointments must reflect the expertise that Parliament requires, not serve as a patronage machine to manufacture a compliant legislature.

There is then the Government’s more radical proposition: abolishing the Lords entirely in favour of an elected senate of the nations and regions. But ambition is no substitute for detail. What powers would such a body possess? How would it be elected? Critically, how would it relate to the democratically elected House of Commons? Those are not minor procedural queries. The fact that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the mover of the motion, seems to answer the question by saying that an unelected panel should decide highlights the fact that Labour had no idea what the radical Lords reform in its manifesto meant and had no plan to deliver it.

If an elected second Chamber can claim equal democratic legitimacy, we invite constitutional gridlock, competing mandates and perpetual legislative paralysis. Our parliamentary system works precisely because it respects the primacy of this elected House, and has done for a century and more, while giving the revising Chamber the freedom to scrutinise. We should not discard that balance for an untested experiment. When will the Minister launch the proposed public consultation? Or are the Government expecting Parliament to sign a blank cheque on Lords reform?

Let me turn to immediate measures. The Opposition engaged constructively with the House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee. We agree that peers must actively contribute; however, we hold grave reservations about an arbitrary retirement age of 80. The distinct value of the other place lies in wisdom, institutional memory and lifetime service, so we should assess peers on the quality of their contribution, not the date on their birth certificate. Sensible reform is possible, just as previous Conservative Governments enabled voluntary retirement and expulsions for misconduct. We are ready to discuss appointments, size and standards, but the constitution belongs not to the Government of the day but to our nation.

[Andrew Rosindell]

On the question of appointments, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is only right that the third largest party in this country should have some representation in the House of Lords today?

[Mike Wood]

It is beyond me to decide who should and should not be in the House of Lords any time soon, but I note that last month the hon. Gentleman’s party leader was talking about flooding the House of Lords with hundreds of new Reform peers, and he said that if that did not work to get Reform’s legislative agenda through, he would have a referendum on abolishing the House of Lords. Reform’s position seems a little confused.

The second Chamber exists not to make life comfortable for Ministers but to hold power to account. The test of any reform is not whether it delivers a pliant Parliament, but whether it serves the British people. That is the test against which His Majesty’s Opposition will hold the Government to account.