House of Lords Reform

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they want to be called to speak. I see that a number of Members are bobbing, so I will give priority to those who applied early to speak in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate.

I represent the Green party. For many years, we have supported the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a fully elected second Chamber. I am personally fairly agnostic about the exact format of how that should be done, but I fundamentally believe that a basic principle of democracy is that the legitimacy of the lawmakers comes from the trust put in them. I am talking about the authority entrusted in the legislature by the people, the voters—not by the people in charge of a political party who draw up a list from time to time, some of which is clearly related to the amount of money donated for years by some of the people who end up in the other place. It is not even through the legitimacy that an individual achieves within their specialised field of expertise because of many long years of practice in that field.

We should absolutely as a Parliament draw on expertise from across the full panoply of sectors in our country, but we need to ask ourselves who should be making the laws. It should be people who work on the basis of the trust given them by the voters, by the people, and on the basis of every vote having equal weight. That is why I am equally passionate about the importance of a proportionally elected Parliament. Fundamentally, we have a system in the House of Lords that is undemocratic and hugely unrepresentative in all sorts of dimensions and areas of demographics. It is untransparent because so much of the decision making about who becomes a Member is done behind closed doors. How can that be suitable for the 21st century? We have a huge problem with not only the composition but the functioning of the House of Lords.

It is, of course, important that legislation is properly scrutinised and that there are full opportunities to amend it. We have questions to ask ourselves in the Commons about how well we do those things and how well our system enables us to, but we do not fix them with an institution such as the House of Lords—no matter how effective individual Members of the Lords may be. Like colleagues here, I pay tribute to the work of so many Members of the Lords who take their role seriously, bring expertise and pay attention to the job that they are there to do. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud has pointed out, there has been a huge failure in the functioning of the House of Lords because, effectively, the will of a few of its Members has overridden the will of the House of Commons. That cannot be right, so we desperately need reform.

I welcome the proposal from the hon. Member for Stroud of a national commission on reform of the House of Lords. To address a point raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), I should say that I would strongly favour the inclusion of a citizen’s assembly as part of that process. I fundamentally believe that a representative sample of the British people, representing all demographics and engaging in the detail and questioning of how we construct our political system, so that the people’s voice is heard, must be a fundamental part of any reform process. We cannot continue as we are—with an undemocratic, unrepresentative, untransparent second Chamber. We must have reform.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. We have time for only one more Back Bencher from the Government side.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir John; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate.

I am glad that our new Prime Minister has referred to the importance of rewiring the state. We should absolutely rewire this place, and I offer a solution. I, too, have my doubts about an elected upper Chamber, for reasons that hon. Members have already rehearsed. I think we can preserve the best elements of the other place and also improve on its deficiencies. The best elements are obviously its expertise and its ability to scrutinise and revise—although I must note that the behaviour of a minority of peers during the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was absolutely shameful. The deficiencies are its patchy expertise, an opaque selection process, a lack of legitimacy and democracy, and its unrepresentative nature when it comes to demography, geography and ethnicity.

I would rename the other place and call it a senate. Fifty per cent. of its Members would be experts, the other 50% being citizen senators—a point already made by the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). The House of Lords Appointments Commission does a good job in difficult circumstances, but we need a more transparent and open system. I would recommend that experts are appointed from across the range of sectors in our society and given a limited 10-year tenure in office. If the President of the United States can get a lot done in eight years then I am sure that expert senators would be able to do a lot in 10.

The more interesting half of the upper Chamber, as I am envisioning it, would be citizen senators. They should be selected by sortition, which is a form of democracy. They would serve under the same principles as juries: they forgo their political and other biases and serve in the national interest to scrutinise legislation that comes to them from the elected Chamber, which must have primacy.

Let us rewire this place, starting with the other place. Let us inject more expertise, fairly and transparently appointed, and bring people into the heart of this Parliament through a system of citizen senators to improve, not block, legislation, through the lens of national, not party, interest.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Kit Malthouse. Kit, I can give you a minute if you want.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

In that case, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Lisa Smart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady should wind up after this intervention.

[Gareth Snell]

I should declare an interest: my wife is the Deputy Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords. As the hon. Lady will know, the Taylor report is bringing in mandatory House of Lords retirement at age 80, so things are progressing.