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.

International Update

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to look at what the hon. Gentleman is saying if he writes to me in detail on that very matter.

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

During the last couple of hours, I have heard the Prime Minister talk about three of the four pillars of our national defence—our military, our resilience and our alliances—but he has yet to mention the crucial fourth pillar, which is the importance of the international rules-based order and the institutions that underpin it. Is he going to take any active steps to defend the International Criminal Court and the UK citizens who work there against the American sanctions that have been placed on it?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we are looking at the decisions that have been reached in relation to that very issue, and we will of course defend any British citizens who have been unfairly treated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has previously told me about Matty and the impact that that had on him. I totally understand that, and I want to be absolutely clear that nobody should be smeared in relation to mental health—nobody—on any issue, whatever they may argue on any other issue. I will do everything I can to make sure that that is the position.

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

In five weeks’ time, the Government will be introducing penal tariffs on steel imports into the UK and, at the same time, massively reducing tariff-free quotas. This will cause enormous damage to the UK’s manufacturing base in the absence of adequate steelmaking capacity in the UK. Furthermore, the way the tariffs are drawn means that Stannah Lifts, a world-beating company based in Andover in my constituency, will face tariffs when importing steel into the UK to manufacture its products, but a competitor’s imported finished product, made from the same steel, will not attract tariffs. This situation cannot be allowed to persist. Will the Prime Minister please arrange for his Secretary of State to focus on this issue and get it sorted out?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important issue? I give him an assurance that it is not just the Secretary of State; I am also absolutely focused on this, because we are all very well aware of the consequences that would otherwise follow. I am personally invested in this, as is the entire Cabinet, because it is a very important issue, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. An issue with this scandal is that, due to the passage of time, evidence will simply not be available. Also, the inquiry found evidence of deliberate document destruction. That is why, while of course I entirely respect IBCA’s independence, I have always said that a sympathetic approach needs to be taken to evidence in that particular context. Indeed, from conversations I have had with Sir Robert Francis and others at IBCA, I know that that is precisely the approach they are seeking to take.

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

I, too, want to recognise the Minister’s commitment to this cause, which has impacted on so many of us across the House. I have a number of technical questions. First, he says that he wants to bring legislation forward this year. As he knows, delay matters, and the estimate is that one affected person is dying every four days. Can he confirm that the legislation will happen this side of the summer? Secondly, if the legislation is required to change the claim amounts, from when will they be dated? Thirdly, can he confirm that if the small number of claims that have been concluded already were eligible for the increased awards, they could be reopened so that more money may flow to those victims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s third question, the answer is yes. His second question related to dates. There are some specific dates that exist in the scheme. For example, assessment for the special category mechanism started in 2017, so that is the date that exists in relevant cases. Finally, I want to bring forward the regulations—this will be the fourth set of regulations—as soon as I possibly can. When I do so, I very much hope that we can collectively deal with them as quickly as possible.

Middle East

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will make the case for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire, and we will continue with our work to de-escalate and not get drawn into this war.

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

We all hear the Prime Minister’s words about Lebanon, but the lesson of the last two and a half years is that his words, and the words of anyone in this House, have no impact on an Israeli Government seemingly led by supremacist maniacs. Before Easter, I asked the Foreign Secretary how many Lebanese was an acceptable number to see killed over the coming weeks, and we have learned over the Easter break that there is seemingly no upper limit before we are willing to act. I want to ask the Prime Minister a simple question: given that he rightly proudly pointed to the part Britain is playing in defending other nations in the region, why have we not stepped forward to defend Lebanese civilians in the same way we have others? Secondly, I have an even simpler question if he cannot answer that one: does Lebanon have a right to exist?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really serious issue. The immediate focus has to be on ensuring that Lebanon is included in the ceasefire and being absolutely clear in our condemnation of the action that Israel is taking. We are working on that on a number of levels, but I have always believed, and continue to believe, that we are stronger when we work with other countries, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I extend a warm welcome to the President of the National Council of the Slovak Republic and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery? May I also welcome the new Chief Minister of Saint Helena?

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Let me start by congratulating Scotland on its magnificent victory last night. It qualified for the World cup for the first time since 1998—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Scotland qualified with fantastic goals, including a cracker from former Arsenal player Kieran Tierney, who was always a favourite with the fans.

My thoughts are with the communities across the country affected by severe flooding, particularly in Monmouthshire. I have been liaising with the First Minister of Wales, and I thank all our emergency services for their response.

My thoughts are also with the family and loved ones of Royal Fleet Auxiliary member James Elliot, who has sadly been lost. I know the contribution that the personnel of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary make, and the risks that they take in the line of duty. My thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are with those who knew him at this tragic and difficult time for them.

Last Thursday, I visited Anglesey to announce the construction of the country’s first small modular reactor. That is the biggest investment in north Wales in a generation, creating more than 6,000 jobs.

On Monday, we introduced the largest overhaul of the asylum policy in modern times, restoring control and fairness, and creating safe and legal routes.

Today, I am pleased to announce that inflation is coming down. There is more to do, but it is an important step. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Kit Malthouse]

Many of us are becoming concerned that technical or procedural manoeuvres outside this House may be used to prevent Parliament from reaching a decision on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The Government are neutral on the Bill itself, but I presume they are not neutral on the issue of democracy or the primacy of this Chamber. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the decision of elected Members—and, indeed, the wishes and hopes of the vast majority of the people we serve—will not be frustrated in this way?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue. As he says, the Government are neutral on the passage of the Bill. It is a matter of conscience; there are different and respected views across Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide in the end on any changes in this Chamber. Scrutiny of the Bill in the Lords is a matter for the Lords, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that any legislation that passes through Parliament is workable, effective and enforceable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I am very proud of the fact that we have published the strategy, delivering on one of our crucial manifesto commitments. My hon. Friend can rest assured that patience is not one of my greatest virtues, and I want to see it implemented and delivered as quickly as possible.

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

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on life sciences, so I know only too well that the industry, which has hitherto been a jewel in our crown, has been struggling to justify further such investment in our economy. Could I press the Secretary of State further on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), and ask her to reassure the House that she has put in a specific, ambitious and vigorous proposal to the Treasury in advance of the Budget to recognise that the life sciences industry is taking more risks than other kinds of investors?

[Liz Kendall]

Patience may not be my middle name, but I consider that—hopefully—specific, ambitious and vigorous are part of my character. There is no route to future growth in this country without science and technology, particularly with life sciences at the core, and I and the Minister for Science in the other place, Lord Vallance, are straining every sinew. There are challenges in our life sciences sector, but we are determined to back those world-leading companies, for British patients and for the British economy.

Middle East

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree that flooding aid is the essential next step, and I took the opportunity to have a discussion with Tom Fletcher yesterday about what more we could do in that regard.

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

Setting aside the fact that we find ourselves in a situation where conditions have been placed upon the cessation of the annihilation of an entire people and the strange delineation between hostages on one side and prisoners held in administrative detention on the other, we should all of course, as the Prime Minister said, express profound relief at the end of the killing, not least of one child every 45 minutes for two years.

Is not the lesson of the last two years that when the UK finally moves on from empty rhetoric to take concrete action, there is movement in the parties to a conflict like this, and that therefore we should be thinking about what more concrete action we can take, in particular in three areas? First, can we please have concrete steps to deter Israeli territorial ambition in the west bank, including a ban on settlement goods, now that we have officially recognised that territory? Secondly, could we have a reassertion of UK support for international law and the institutions that support it? In particular, could the Prime Minister use his relationship with President Trump to have the sanctions on individuals at the UN and the International Criminal Court lifted? Finally, if we are to support or participate in an international stabilisation force, could we insist that it also covers areas B and C of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where the Israel Defence Forces too often act as cover for incidents of Israeli terrorism?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I will take each of the three parts in turn. Certainly, on the west bank, we have taken action, as he knows, and we will continue to look at what further action we can take where we can with other countries. It is important, as we focus on Gaza, that we do not forget the situation in the west bank, as he rightly knows.

On international law, yes of course we are committed to international law and proud to uphold it, and I am pleased to hear him say so. That was once the proud position of his party as well. Sadly, that is no longer the case. On the stabilisation force, the terms of reference are still being drawn up. There is a United Nations Security Council resolution on the establishment of the force, or I hope there will be, but the wider terms of reference are not yet agreed. I will bear in mind what he has said.

G7 and NATO Summits

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. She has campaigned hard on this. It is central that if there is to be a ceasefire and a lasting peace in Ukraine—and I hope that there is—it must involve the return of the children. We have discussed that many times, and will continue to do so.

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

Since the second world war, our national security has been based broadly on three pillars: our physical defences, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement; the alliances that we have built, which he also mentioned; and the international rules-based order, which he did not mention. What discussion did he have at either summit about the importance of international law, and the undermining of its credibility through the inconsistent way that it has been applied in the conflicts in Ukraine and in Gaza? In particular, did he try to persuade President Trump to lift the United States sanctions on the International Criminal Court?

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is no longer in his place, this is not a deadline to claim compensation; it is a deadline for applying for the support schemes. As I also indicated in my previous answer, if injustice arises from a gap in time, I will look at that.

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

As a number of Members have said to the Minister, speed is obviously of the essence. I have two questions. First, even though I hear him say that there is a backstop date by which he wants everything to be completed, would it be possible for individual applicants to have a target landing date on which IBCA will contact them? That way, their expectations are managed and people can think about their affairs in due course. Secondly, can the Minister say, hand on heart, that IBCA has enough resources? If it had twice as many people, could it move twice as fast?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I am sure that he, as a former Minister, will understand that I respect IBCA’s operational independence in terms of the payments that are being made, but as I have indicated, I stand ready to help to push this forward. Secondly, absolutely there are adequate resources here. We have allocated £11.8 billion to this scheme. He used the example of the number of caseworkers, and I stand ready to assist with that in order to push things forward with IBCA.