House of Lords Reform

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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 ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate, and I thank Members for their contributions to what has been, unsurprisingly, an interesting and enlightening discussion.

Before I respond to some of the specific questions raised, I will first set out the Government’s approach to reforming the House of Lords. The Government have a number of manifesto commitments in this space and are approaching reform of the second Chamber in stages. The first stage is already complete: in the previous Session, Parliament passed legislation to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This important and historic step means that no peer can now be a Member of the House of Lords solely on the basis of birthright.

We are currently in the second stage, and are focused on implementing our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement, which I know Members from all parties are concerned about. For a long time there has been general agreement in both Houses that the second Chamber is too big. However, if we ask more Members of that Chamber to depart by introducing a retirement age, new talent will be required, and new people will need time to learn how to develop expertise and fulfil their duties effectively as Members of the other place.

[Kit Malthouse]

Does the Minister agree that more important than the number of people or how often they attend that House is that it has become clear that individual peers are much more powerful than individual elected Members of Parliament? They have greater privileges and less transparency, and are able to influence legislation to a much greater degree than we are in this elected House. That is fundamentally what lies at the heart of the problem. We can indulge ourselves with tweaks around the edges, as all Governments have done, but in the end, unless we address that fundamental problem, the dissatisfaction will continue.

[Mark Ferguson]

I know the right hon. Gentleman has strong views on this issue, and I am glad he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am sure he will continue to contribute. I take his point, but I do not entirely agree. I think the primacy of the House of Commons and of MPs is incredibly important, and I feel that view will, unsurprisingly, be shared in a room full of Members of the House of Commons.

Our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement will have a direct impact on Members of the other place; therefore, during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, the Leader of the House of Lords proposed to establish a dedicated Select Committee, to provide the opportunity for the second Chamber to shape how further reforms are delivered. The Retirement and Participation Committee published its report in July, and it was debated in the other place in September. The report was genuinely House-led, with over 100 Members submitting evidence to the Committee. The Government are carefully considering the Committee’s recommendations and will respond substantively later this year. I know that if Members are here for this debate, they will look out for that response.

The historical context of House of Lords reform tells us that an incremental approach is often quite effective. Throughout the 20th century there were various attempts to fully reform the second Chamber. Some passed, but some failed. Of course, there were the Parliament Acts of 1911 and of 1949, but there were also decades of stagnation and stalled attempts. The previous Labour Government managed to introduce the House of Lords Act 1999, reducing the number of hereditary peers from around 700 to 92.

In the 21st century, a royal commission and joint Committee of both Houses were established, alongside the publication of numerous White Papers during the Blair and Brown years. The coalition Government introduced a Bill that was voted down in the House of Commons. None of those attempts were able to bring about lasting reform to the second Chamber.

However, during that time it was possible to pass reforms on expulsion, attendance and resignation that held cross-party consensus. That is why the Government are focused on conducting a staged approach to House of Lords reform. We are focused on delivering outcomes and keeping promises. Rather than attempting to reform the whole House in a single go, our strategy is to implement important initial reforms that meet our objective of having a smaller second Chamber that better represents the country it serves.

The third stage of reform, which has taken up a large proportion of this debate—I will return to some specific points—focuses on the manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the Lords with an alternative second Chamber. The Government recognise that previous public consultations and attempts to reform that House did not bring about lasting change. Nevertheless, the Government want to see a second Chamber that better represents the nations and regions—something I am personally very interested in—and I know that hon. Members share that vision. There are many ways of achieving that goal, and we owe it to the public to get the consultation right.

Let me address some of the specific points made by individual Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who referenced the abolition of the House of Lords in 1649. A lot of things happened in 1649, some of which we may not wish to repeat.

It was also enjoyable—and entertaining in a different way—to hear from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I was surprised to hear him say that he wants continuity, given that there has not even been continuity in the party he has represented within this Parliament. I think this country needs to change and I believe that, in his own way, he believes the country needs to change, too—otherwise his recent change of party is somewhat surprising. I enjoyed hearing him dabble in unicameralism; I was not necessarily expecting that point, which was often championed in this place by the former Labour Member Mike Gapes, a proud unicameralist. There are not many of them in the House, so it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Romford make that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made a point, among many others, about the size and composition of the Lords. The Government believe that all peers should make an active contribution to the House of Lords. There is a general, albeit not universal, consensus that the second Chamber is too big. In addressing that, we should recognise that the pace of change in every field is increasing, which means we need new talent with up-to-date experience. The introduction of a participation requirement and a retirement age sit at the heart of this work. As the Leader of the House has said, we believe the second Chamber works best when it is full time with part-time Members.

My hon. Friend will get a lot of sympathy on the Government Benches for his point, which I will return to in a moment, about the number of representatives from the nations and regions. HOLAC is independent, and vetting for propriety includes checks with Government Departments, agencies and other organisations, including the Electoral Commission. It plays a vital role in vetting all peers and nominating Cross Benchers to the Lords.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) spoke passionately about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and I know her frustrations on that matter. It is obviously a sensitive and delicate subject matter that should be dealt with seriously. The Government were and remain neutral on that specific Bill and the issue of assisted dying, and it was up to the other place to determine how that Bill was scrutinised, as with other legislation.

I enjoyed the reference to Kellie from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—although I always warn against weighing the mailbag to find out how important an issue is, as I am sure all Members would agree. I was interested to hear the Lib Dem position with regard to the monarch. That said, the loss of trust in politics comes, alas, at least as much from the Commons as from the Lords. It is unacceptable that disgraced peers can retain their peerages regardless of circumstances. Legislation to enable peerages to be removed was included in the King’s Speech. The Government will announce further details in due course.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), talked about care, caution and balance; I am disappointed that was not the position the Conservatives took with regard to the abolition of the hereditary principle. I once again thank right hon. and hon. Members for this thought-provoking debate on the second Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered House of Lords reform.