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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Kim Leadbeater.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q9. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and welcome back. I also welcome the Prime Minister to his role. We have many shared passions—sport, music, and a deep sense of community. I know we both have a strong desire to ensure that everyone in our country has a sense of pride, identity and belonging—that everyone feels safe and no one feels lonely—but sadly, that is not always the case. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to support people in communities such as Spen Valley who may feel isolated or are dealing with antisocial behaviour such as speeding and dangerous driving, inappropriate use of e-scooters and offroad bikes, and fireworks, to give residents confidence that their concerns are being taken seriously?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because she speaks for many people at home, who will have been nodding away. I spoke to these issues in the Makerfield by-election, as we had an illegal waste tip, and it looked like nobody was taking any action on it. I think there is a case for going further on fireworks and regulating them. On antisocial behaviour more broadly, I supported Greater Manchester police in taking the toughest possible approach to rooting out antisocial behaviour through Operation Vulcan. I think that can be extended elsewhere. We should not accept that this is just the daily norm in communities. I happen to support the broken windows theory of policing. If we let small things go, bigger things come along, and we should change how we think about neighbourhood policing, as the Home Secretary is doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I met President Zelensky in Kyiv just a few weeks ago—it was my eighth meeting. The position since the outbreak of this conflict has been a united position across the House of supporting Ukraine, and I was able to reiterate my position, which is that we must put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. That matters now just as much as it mattered at the beginning of the conflict, and I did discuss with him what more we and our allies can do to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q3. Two years ago, from the Opposition Benches, I published my “Healthy Britain” report, recommending a cross-departmental approach to improving health and wellbeing. Now that we are in government, I am delighted that Ministers have hit the ground running—because running is obviously very healthy. Will the Prime Minister confirm that last week’s announcement of an increase to the public health grants, which will help local services to focus more on prevention and early intervention, is just the start of a long-term strategy that will make Britain healthier, happier and more productive; reduce pressure on the NHS; and promote growth?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important role that local communities play in supporting healthy lifestyles. I am delighted that we are providing almost £4 billion for the local health services that people rely on—things like health visitors, stop smoking services and drug abuse treatments. I will make sure that she meets the relevant Minister to discuss this issue.

Debate on the Address

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who is almost my namesake.

It is a great pleasure to speak on His Majesty’s first King’s Speech under a Labour Government. We promised change and, as I look around Parliament, I see an awful lot of change, with people in new places and so many new faces. I am enjoying starting to get to know many of the newly elected Members, mostly from my party, but from other parties too. To them, I say welcome. And to you and your team, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say good luck learning everybody’s name and face.

By coincidence, the 4 July general election that put me in this place as the first MP for the new Spen Valley constituency came just three days after the third anniversary of the Batley and Spen by-election in which I was first elected to this place. It is fair to say that a lot has changed in just three short years. I remember pounding the streets of Batley and Spen in 2021 during challenging times that were full of uncertainty, division and, for many people, fear.

The dark cloud of the covid pandemic still hung over us, many people were struggling with the cost of living, and politics felt worryingly polarised in this and other countries. I think it is fair to say that the Labour party was not in a great place. Many doubted that we would see power again in 10 years, never mind three. If the result in Batley and Spen played its part in turning things around and getting us to where we are today, I am delighted that we were able to help.

Although I was delighted with the result, the Batley and Spen by-election was not a pleasant experience. At times, we saw the worst of politics, including unacceptable behaviour from those who use our precious democracy to divide us rather than unite us. My constituents deserved better, and I hoped passionately that no other candidate would have to go through what I went through. Sadly, that has not been the case.

Although I am relieved that the general election campaign in Spen Valley was mostly conducted in a civilised manner, the same cannot be said elsewhere. Many candidates and their supporters, often women, faced threats, harassment and abuse. None of this should be part of any job, and it is not what our politics should look like. We must not normalise it, and we must all do our bit to change it.

On this, the first day of the first debate in a new Parliament, we all have the opportunity to reset the dial on politics and work towards a political culture that fosters robust, rigorous debate and scrutiny but does not allow fear, intimidation and abuse to become the norm. As His Majesty said, this Government

“will take steps to…rebuild trust and foster respect.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this approach and will work with colleagues across the House in this endeavour.

I am a realistic optimist. I know it is not going to be easy to bring the change that our country needs, but this new Parliament fills me with hope. I see people around me who are determined to be part of the change to a better kind of politics. The Prime Minister rightly describes it as the return of politics to public service, and he correctly says that this can be achieved only through actions, not words.

With so many new faces and so much new energy and commitment, I believe we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity in this place to change not only the Government, although that is certainly welcome, but the whole culture of politics, to restore the business we are all in to one that people can look at with respect. That starts with how we behave in here because, whether we like it or not, this Chamber is the window into our national politics. If we treat each other in here with courtesy, if we listen to the arguments of those we disagree with as politely as we listen to the arguments of those we support, and if we show that we can air our differences passionately but with genuine respect, people at home will notice. It would be the right thing to do even if they did not, but I believe they will.

My constituents want to see change. They sent me here to deliver it, and I will not let them down. It is a wonderful part of West Yorkshire where people have a real sense of pride in where they are from, whether that is the towns of Heckmondwike, Mirfield, Birstall or Cleckheaton, or the many beautiful surrounding villages—too many to list, but I will certainly make sure they all get a mention over the next five years.

I understand that pride because I share it. It is where I was born and have lived all my life. In Spen Valley, we tell it like it is. We are not easily fooled and we take no nonsense. So my constituents will only believe in change when they see it and when they feel it. This King’s Speech sets out the busy but exciting agenda to make that change happen, and the duty falls on us to make sure it does, whether it is affordable housing; safer streets and more police in our communities; tackling antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls; shorter waiting times and better access to GPs and dentists on the NHS; better education and opportunities for the young—academic and vocational—including for those with special educational needs and disabilities; reliable public transport; support for people with mental health; or social care that offers dignity in old age and for the most vulnerable in our society. I am all for giving local people more power to make decisions that affect their lives, so I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s pledge to kickstart a devolution revolution, with the economic growth and prosperity that underpins all this and helps to give people a bit more at the end of the month,

Another thing about Yorkshire people is that we do not waste money. We know that you can’t spend what you haven’t got. So when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves)—my good friend and fellow Yorkshire MP, and our first female Chancellor—warns that we have to get the nation’s finances in good order and it has to be our first priority, people get it.

Politics as public service relies, above all, on trust and honesty. Only if we are straight with people about the challenges we face as a country, and we have honest conversations with our constituents about what we can and sometimes cannot do—or cannot do straightaway—will they start to have faith in politics as a force for good in their lives.

We have in our hands today a tremendous opportunity to begin the transformation of this country into a country that is looked on once again with respect around the world, ready to step up and play our part, whether on tackling climate change, defending democracy when it is under threat, or doing everything we can to end the appalling and devastating conflicts in the middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere—in short, a country of which we can all be proud. There is a lot of work to do, but the time starts now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Siân Berry to make her maiden speech,