House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to all the Lords amendments, but I will go into more detail on Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 8. I am pleased that the Bill is making progress, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book as soon as possible. We are one step closer to fulfilling yet another manifesto pledge.

I welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for the reasons already set out. They will allow Members of the other place who lose capacity to retire with the dignity that they deserve. It is clearly a sensitive and complex problem, and I congratulate the Government on finding a solution that received unanimous cross-party support in the other place. I hope it will receive the same cross-party unanimous support in this place today.

We have already discussed Lords amendments 1 and 8, which propose to stop hereditary peer by-elections and stop any vacancies being filled, although they would still allow current hereditary peers to stay in the Lords, allowing their numbers to grow smaller and smaller as they gradually begin to leave. If passed, the amendments would leave the current crop of hereditary peers in the Second Chamber for years and years—indeed, in some cases, as we have heard, for decades—but the entire purpose of the Bill is to remove them immediately, because of the principle that underpins our decision to make this change.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I count a great many hereditary peers among my friends, and I know that they do excellent jobs. However, Britain stands, alongside Lesotho, as a complete anomaly in the 21st century by preserving legislative roles based on lineage. Serving in this House, as in any other, is a privilege of the highest order. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our legislators should be there on the basis of merit rather than DNA?

[Mark Sewards]

I congratulate the hon. Lady for having so many friends in the other place. I could not agree with her more—it is almost as if she has read my speech and hence made her timely intervention.

[Andrew Rosindell]

If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hereditary principle is wrong and that no one should be in this Parliament by dint of DNA, surely he is saying that we should abolish the monarchy. The Crown is part of this Parliament and Royal Assent is part of the legislative process. If we go by his principle, the hon. Gentleman is basically saying that the monarchy itself is no longer relevant. Is that what he is saying?

[Mark Sewards]

All I would say is, “Long live the King.” What we do with our hereditary peers today does not affect what we do with our monarchy. As I was saying, no one should serve in the other place and make our laws simply because of the family that they were born into. No one should—not them, not me, not my children and not theirs. That is a basic principle that I hope we can all get behind.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s case, in essence, is that the only form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic legitimacy, but that does not square with the exercise of power in all kinds of other ways, does it? We do not elect our judges—some countries do, but we do not. We do not elect all kinds of people who exercise fundamental powers. Many kinds of legitimacy are not democratic legitimacy. Surely he acknowledges that, had the Government come forward with a proposal that allowed the hereditary peerage to wither on the vine, it would be hard for anyone in the House to disagree, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment.

[Mark Sewards]

The principle I am talking about applies specifically to the two Chambers that make and scrutinise our laws, submit amendments and so on. The idea that some people should be allowed a say in that process because of the family they were born into is alien to me. The House of Lords should have been abolished years ago. I am glad that the Government are finally taking the steps to remove that principle.

I am certain that decent arguments can be made for the contributions of hereditary peers being good ones, often with the nuance and expertise that comes with dedicated service in the other place. I have no doubt that we will hear such arguments today, but the same is true of those who are appointed as life peers—at least when political parties fulfil their responsibilities and choose appropriate people for the roles. Life peers, too, will go on to make excellent contributions and scrutinise our laws carefully using their relevant expertise and knowledge—given that they are often selected because of their expertise and knowledge, and not in the cynical way that the shadow Front Bench and others were suggesting earlier. Even if they do not, it is a life appointment, not one based on blood that they can pass down to the next generation, so I think that the system of life peerages is the better way to go. If Opposition Members genuinely believe that the hereditary peers who will lose their places because of this legislation should still be in the other place, they can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that is, submits their names to make them a life peer.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely well, and I think that people with a mind to compromise would like to go down that road, but does he recognise that the usual handful of allocations will not be enough on this one-off occasion to meet the requirement that he has so ably outlined?

[Mark Sewards]

More than 20 positions are available already and, as time goes on, more will become available. It will be up to the Leader of the Opposition to make that decision.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party manifesto stated clearly that we will abolish hereditary peers? Were we not to do so, the people of this country would simply be bewildered.

[Mark Sewards]

My hon. Friend made the point extremely well. I have had to deal with this on a number of issues, including introducing VAT on private schools, for example, where Members came to this place, argued the point and said that we had no right to do it—yet it was in our manifesto, so we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation. I hope that Opposition Members will join us in the lobbies as we do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) chunters from a sedentary position, but I am more than happy to take an intervention, if he wishes to make one.

[Alex Burghart]

If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Labour party has a moral obligation to implement every part of its manifesto, how does he feel about the bits that it has already ditched?

[Mark Sewards]

The Labour party has a moral obligation to fulfil our manifesto pledges, and I am confident that during our five-year term we will make great progress on everything that we set out in that document.

I have argued that Lords amendment 1 undermines the core purpose of the Bill and is entirely inconsistent with our commitment to remove hereditary peers from the other place. Lords amendment 2 is an attempt to ensure that in future all Ministers who sit in the House of Lords are paid a salary. Having read Lords Hansard, I know that this is a well-intentioned amendment and I can see why the Lords have submitted it. However, ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, so any proposals to change them should be made through amendments to that Act rather than through this Bill. This Bill is specific, narrow and focused. If we want to have a conversation about those salaries, we need to allocate far more time to that and consider separate legislation, so I will not be supporting Lords amendment 2.

I had to do quite a bit of reading around the subject to understand Lords amendment 3. I understand that Lord True, the leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, wanted to clarify the power of the monarch to confer a life peerage that is granted without a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The creation of a new form of life peerage without any kind of parliamentary responsibility is unnecessary—I will take interventions, as I am happy to have this point clarified—because, quite simply, the King already has that power. He used it when he granted his brother, Prince Edward, the title of Duke of Edinburgh. Therefore, the power already exists and the need to clarify that power is unnecessary.

Lord True mentioned that the newly clarified power could be used to honour people without swelling the ranks of the House of Lords. However, as we have already heard, if we want to recognise special contributions to public life, there are already plenty of ways to do that, such as knighthoods, damehoods, OBEs, CBEs and so on. I maintain that life peerages should be reserved for those who actively participate in the work of the House of Lords, and I therefore urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 3.

Speaking about Lords reform more broadly, which has come up during the debate, I was pleased to read in Lords Hansard that Baroness Smith has suggested that a Select Committee, set up in the other place, could be used to examine a mandatory retirement age and minimum participation requirements, which I know many Members in this House support. The suggestion included a timeframe: set the Committee up within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and it will report back next year, so we can make real progress on the other commitments. I wholeheartedly endorse that approach and look forward to the outcome of this work.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers who do not sit. I do not know the view of Members on the Government Front Bench on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid argument. If people do not attend, it is sensible that they should not retain their right to do so. If people are appointed to the House of Lords and then never turn up, there is a good argument that there should be a point at which they should be told that they no longer have that title. However, on the matter of retirement on the grounds of age, this is a very dicey business, given that we have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.

[Mark Sewards]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made and I will be following the work of the Select Committee closely. We have already heard names mentioned of people who are over the age of 80 and still making great contributions, so I will follow the Committee’s work closely before making a final judgment on the issue.

More broadly than the work that the Committee will undertake, once this Bill has become law, I will continue to advocate for a second Chamber that is more representative of our nations and regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

What about Scotland?

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. When it comes to Scotland, the figure is about 2% or 3%—I cannot recall the actual figures, but I will check.

The point remains that we have to make the House of Lords more representative of our nations and regions. We could address this issue in a piecemeal way, in the same way that we have addressed the hereditary issue over many decades. We could slowly introduce reform after reform on who gets appointed, where they come from, what proportion have to come from Yorkshire and so on, but I am not a fan of that approach. We should be as bold as possible and do the difficult work now, because we were elected to do the difficult work in this term and set out an ambitious plan for the wholesale replacement of the other Chamber, ready to be made up of people from all our nations and regions. It should be a truly democratic body that draws on the same golden thread that should always exist between the people we serve in this place and those who should sit in a second elected Chamber. [Interruption.] Hon. Members chunter that this point is off topic; I probably agree, because the Bill does not cover that.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The Bill in front of us will remove the archaic right of somebody to sit in Parliament because of the family they were born into; I find that principle very hard to disagree with. The Bill shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative, and it should be just the start of our commitment to reform the other place and improve our ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I find this to be quite a curious debate thus far. There is not any great energy among Members on the Conservative Benches; I fully expected and anticipated that they would be down here in great numbers to defend their noble colleagues. I think there is only one Conservative speaker left—I look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). There was not the usual energy in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); I just do not know what was missing. There is a sense that they cannot be bothered defending this issue any more, which is a good thing. I am also beginning to detect a little bit of a drift between noble Lords in the Conservative party in the House of Lords and Conservative Members here.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, which fulfils his earlier promise to make one, and for his correspondence with me on a specific case. I also welcome the fact that the Government are committed, in principle or in full, to all the recommendations made by the inquiry. Last week at the inquiry I met my constituent Martin Threadgold, one of the victims of this scandal. Martin has expressed to me several concerns about the pace at which victims are being compensated, and those concerns have been echoed across the House today. May I ask two questions on Martin’s behalf? First, £11.8 billion was allocated in the Budget to this scheme, so can the Minister confirm how much has been paid out so far? Secondly, will he use his good offices to ensure that IBCA pays out as many claims as possible and as fast as it possibly can?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this—he speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituent. As I indicated in an earlier answer, just over £96 million has been paid out, but I will continue to use my ministerial office, as well as working to hold IBCA to account, to move from what has been IBCA’s test-and-learn phase into a different phase and start to really speed up these payments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The position of the Government is unchanged; we have no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We will, of course, always listen to sensible proposals from the EU, but they have to be within our red lines of no return to freedom of movement, no return to the single market and no return to the customs union.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to implement the Government�s plan for change.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

I am pleased to report to the House that we are making progress in delivering our plan for change. After years of rising NHS waiting lists under the Conservatives, those waiting lists are now falling and last month we announced that we had met our first step pledge to deliver 2 million additional NHS appointments seven months early. In addition to that, the first 750 breakfast clubs will open in April to help children get the best start to their learning day, and our new criminal justice legislation is being introduced to protect the public from crime and antisocial behaviour, including the introduction of respect orders targeted at known troublemakers in our local communities.

[Mark Sewards]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I was proud to vote for the �22.6 billion increase in NHS spending, which means that we are getting 2 million more appointments seven months early and that waiting lists are coming down. Of course, there is still a long way to go and the British public deserve to know that every penny of that extra investment is being spent as efficiently as possible. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government�s plans are to reform the NHS to ensure that every single penny is spent wisely?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the additional resources for the NHS were only made possible by the Budget proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor back in October. My hon. Friend is also right to say that as more money goes into the NHS, there is a duty to ensure that that is matched by reform. The 10-year health plan will set out how we will deliver an NHS by creating a reformed and modern health service to ensure that the extra investment results in faster and more convenient treatment for patients, because that is what we all want to see.

Ukraine

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me recommit to AUKUS and our strong support for it. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is absolutely right; China is watching very carefully what is happening in Russia, and we should always bear that in mind.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is clear through his actions over the last few days—and, indeed, from the questions asked across the House today —that the Prime Minister has restored Britain’s place on the world stage. As a patriot, I thank him for that. It is also clear just how hard he is working to ensure that there is sustainable and lasting peace in Ukraine. I still find myself speaking to individuals—I believe they are a minority—who question why we are still sending money to Ukraine and why it is not being spent on Britain. Please can the Prime Minister say what he would tell them about why it is in Britain’s direct national interest to ensure that Ukraine wins this peace from a position of strength?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is in our national interest because insecurity and conflict in Europe always washes up on our shore—it has already done that. The cost of living crisis is far worse because of the conflict in Ukraine. Oil prices and energy prices have gone through the roof in the last few years because of the conflict in Ukraine. Working people in Britain are already paying the price, and there will be an even bigger price if we do not have a sustained and lasting peace in Ukraine. This is about Ukraine’s sovereignty —of course it is—but it is also about the safety and security of Europe and the safety and security of our country. That is why it is in our national interest for us to take the steps that we are taking.

Defence and Security

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman says I did not mention the UN. The UN charter is at the heart of this, because Russia is in breach of it. Russia is an aggressor that has invaded another country and is occupying part of that country, and it will go further if it is encouraged down that line. That is why we need to take these decisions. It is the first duty of Government to keep our country safe and secure. That is a duty I take extremely seriously. The poorest people in this country would be the first to suffer if the security and safety of our country was put in peril.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that NATO is the bedrock on which we found our alliance. He is absolutely right to say that we can only achieve peace through strength, and he is absolutely right to cut the foreign development budget to pay for a £13.4 billion increase in defence spending. It is a difficult decision, but there is nothing more important than the defence and security of the British people. What conversations has the Prime Minister had or does he hope to have with our European allies about their defence spending? Does he hope to see increases across the continent in the future?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

4. What recent progress his Department has made on reform of the House of Lords.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

17. What recent progress his Department has made on reform of the House of Lords.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

As an immediate first step in reform, the Government introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That Bill was amended and passed in this House, and will soon be in Committee in the other place.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we want to see this Bill on the statute book by the end of this Session. The role of hereditary peers is completely indefensible in this day and age. Last year, the Bill was resoundingly approved by this House, and it is currently going through the other place, where it will soon be in Committee. It is a clear manifesto commitment by the Labour party, and I look forward to it being delivered.

[Mark Sewards]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Being the MP for Leeds South West and Morley is the greatest privilege I could ask for, and constituency boundaries ensure that all parts of our country are represented in this place. The same is not true of the other place, which is not representative of our nations and regions. What work is being done or considered to remedy that, to ensure that all of our communities are represented in the other place?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the Member of Parliament for the seat where I grew up, I share my hon. Friend’s passion for representing my area. He will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to reform the process of appointments to the House of Lords so that it better reflects the country it serves, and we will consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions.

General Election

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I start by thanking those who organised the petition, including Mr Westwood, for securing this debate on today of all days. It is my birthday, and I can think of no better place to be, so I thank them very much for that. I also thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for ably setting out the constitutional position as to when the next general election will be. We know that it will be held on or before 15 August 2029. It is the Prime Minister’s decision when he wants to make a request, but the election must be held by then.

Labour did win a general election a little over six months ago with a huge mandate for the policies set out in our manifesto. We secured 9.7 million votes. In the same election, the Conservatives secured 6.8 million votes, Reform 4.1 million votes and the Liberal Democrats 3.5 million votes. Given those figures, it is perhaps no surprise that lots of people are unhappy with the outcome of the general election in July.

The reason stated in the petition was that we are not going to fulfil our manifesto promises, that we have gone back on our manifesto promises, and that is why there needs to be a general election now. That is what I will focus my contribution on; I want to address that point, because nothing could be further from the truth. We are going to make the most of the full term we have in government to deliver on the policies set out in our manifesto.

One of the first promises we made was to manage the public finances properly, to balance the books on day-to-day spending, as any responsible Government should. We knew this one would not be easy, but we are simply not prepared to continue with the fiction that no difficult decisions are required to fund our NHS properly, to rebuild our schools and to pay down the £22 billion black hole left by the former, Conservative Government. If the Opposition parties—I include all of them in this—are serious about rebuilding trust in politics and politicians, they must stop pretending that no difficult decisions are required to balance the books. They must actually set out exactly where the axe would fall if they were in government. They will not be taken seriously by the British public at the next general election unless they do.

On that point, we must remember the context in which the previous general election was called in the first place. The Conservatives thought they could get away with spending money they did not have in government: they spent the national reserve three times over in the first three months of this fiscal year. They promised compensation to the victims of the infected blood scandal without allocating a penny to pay for it, and they did exactly the same to the postmasters. They promised 40 new hospitals and did not allocate anything close to the money required to actually deliver them, and then they called an election that they thought they might lose so that somebody else could sort out the mess. We have heard it even here today: they are still pretending, even now, that they would not have given out a single penny in pay rises to our public sector workers. Our armed forces, of course, were very fortunate to receive their largest pay rise in 22 years.

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? This is supposed to be a debate. Will he give way?

[Mr Sewards]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not he would support that pay rise. I am very happy to give way—I was just coming to the end of my point.

[Mr Francois]

As Hansard will show, no one said that we would not have given public sector workers a pay rise. No one on these Benches uttered those words, but the £9 billion that Labour awarded was part of that supposed £22 billion figure. Does the hon. Gentleman contest that?

[Mr Sewards]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The simple fact is that the Opposition have to make a decision about exactly how much they would have given in public sector pay rises. They chose to dodge that decision and hand it on to the next lot—to us. As a result, we have had to take decisions to close a £22 billion black hole that they knew full well they were leaving and that there was no way we could have known we were inheriting. Their financial mismanagement has led to this. The Conservatives have not changed and, unfortunately, given the contributions from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, they appear unwilling to do so. They are not serious people. We will get on with fixing their mess and fulfilling our manifesto commitments.

Turning back to the manifesto, I encourage anybody to look at the progress we have made despite the inheritance I have set out: a 3.3% increase in day-to-day spending on public services; a record £22.6 billion for the NHS to ensure that we can put on 40,000 new appointments every week and cut waiting times; an increase in the core schools budget so that we can recruit 6,500 new teachers; a rail nationalisation Bill that takes back public control of our trains; a Renters’ Rights Bill that bans no-fault eviction; a water measures Bill that punishes those who pollute our water; a crime and policing Bill to take back control of our streets; a Great British Energy Bill to deliver clean, secure energy; and the Employment Rights Bill, which delivers workplace rights fit for a modern economy so that people are protected at work. Every single one of those things was in our manifesto. It will take us five years, but we will deliver the things we set out in our manifesto.

I could go on, but I am sure Opposition Members will be very grateful and forgive me if I do not. In government, we will continue to deliver for working people. To those in my constituency who signed the petition, I say that I fully appreciate and understand their anger and frustration, but we were elected not to deliver quick fixes; we were elected to deliver long-term results for the United Kingdom. We will sort out this mess and we will leave our country in a better place than we found it, unlike the previous Government. Six months is not enough time to fix all our country’s problems, but we will make real progress on them over the next four years.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

As I said, if the goals are to be reached, it will require reform of the state itself, and part of that is about local delivery. There has been a lot of innovation in recent years. We started devolution when we were last in power, and the Conservative party took it forward with the creation of a number of mayors around the country. There is further to go with that. Having mayors and strong local leaders as partners can really help us to deliver the goals set out in the document.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has set out concrete, deliverable and measurable milestones against which the British public can judge us. What a stark contrast to Conservative Front-Bench Members, who still refuse even to acknowledge the Liz Truss economic disaster that was the mini-Budget, and to apologise for it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any sort of U-turn that sees the Conservatives backing our steps to restore economic stability is unlikely, and that they will continue to cling to the idea of the magic money tree?

[Pat McFadden]

The Conservatives did deliver some things. They delivered a huge economic crash, a Bank of England intervention in order to prop up the pension system, and significant increases in mortgage rates, which people are still paying today. The most important thing about defeat is to learn from it, and I have to say from observing the Conservative party that they are not yet doing that.

G20 and COP29 Summits

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s global leadership—he has restored our place on the world stage. Climate change is the biggest threat facing us all. That used to be an uncontroversial statement, which is why I was stunned to hear the Leader of the Opposition describe the actions we have taken to deal with that problem as being done for “short-term publicity.” That is absolutely outrageous. Is the Prime Minister as delighted as I am that the climate sceptics of the Conservative party are now sitting on the Opposition Benches, so that we can take the long-term decision from the Government Benches?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a great shame that the Conservative party has decided to go backwards on that important challenge. Not so many years ago, there was a united position across the House because it is such an important challenge. I think that is simply a sign of how far the Conservatives have fallen. It is unsurprising that they are on the Opposition Benches. May they remain there for very long time.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Mark Sewards Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of female representation, particularly in the Church. The long history of women’s progress in this country teaches us one thing: it cannot be left to chance. That is why it is so important that we pass this Bill. Women must organise and keep up the pressure, and institutions must change. Our Parliament must also change; between 1918 and 2024, only 693 women have been elected as Members of this House. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned female representation in Parliament. As of July 2024, there are 263 women in this House, the highest ever number. Female representation is at an all-time high of 40%, yet even now, we still need progress to be truly reflective of our society.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am really pleased to hear the Minister setting out exactly what a representative Chamber should look like. I was especially pleased to hear her comments to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), about the broader reforms to the other place that we are proposing. I was proud to be here on Tuesday night during the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill’s Third Reading to talk about the amendments, and I was so proud to vote in favour of removing the 92 hereditary peers in the other place. My hon. Friend has made a commitment to reforming the other place. Do we have any timescales in mind, and can we make the commitment to the public and to this House that those reforms will come forward in the first term of a Labour Government?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and for the part he played on Tuesday in making sure we could get that important Bill through. As he knows, it is an important step—the first step that we are taking towards reform of the House of Lords. I hope he recognises that as a Government, we are taking this very seriously. We are making sure that we deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to look at immediate reform, and particularly to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I hope he can contribute again at a later stage when we progress those reforms.

As I have mentioned, this Bill is narrow. It amends an Act that was passed in 2015. We need to improve female representation, particularly when it comes to bishops in the House of Lords. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned, the contributions already made by female bishops show the significant changes they can make, particularly through the diversity that they bring. If we do not make those improvements, we will revert back to the way we were when it comes to representation in the House of Lords.