House of Lords Reform

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.