House of Lords (Alternative Second Chamber) Bill [HL]

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill.

I am the first to acknowledge that Governments—and, more to the point, the public—face challenges that may feel a good deal more pressing than constitutional reform, not least the cost of living. But it would be wrong to assume that there is no popular interest in our constitutional arrangements. On the contrary, people hold clear views on Lords reform, and it is fair to say that the majority believe there is some room for improvement.

The gap between how the public perceive this House and how the House sometimes regards itself is striking. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows staunch support for change. Labour’s manifesto reflected this imperative. It set out commitments first for incremental reforms, including the removal of seats for hereditary Peers, a mandatory retirement age, participation requirements and ways to make it quicker and easier to remove disgraced Peers. The public believe that such changes are long overdue, but progress still feels painfully slow. Labour’s manifesto reflected mainstream public opinion when it asserted that the right to inherit a seat in the Lords was “indefensible”. Yet we spent many long, late hours in this place while some tried to do just that.

Labour’s manifesto also committed to substantive reform. It commits to

“replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”

and to consulting the public on proposals. This is not about changing this House’s core function—a reformed second Chamber would continue to play its vital role in scrutinising the Government and improving the quality of legislation—nor about undermining the primacy of the House of Commons. However, to protect that primacy it does not automatically follow that this House should remain wholly unelected; rather, we need to ask why the UK is alone in having the only second Chamber in Europe that has no part democratically elected, whether directly or indirectly.

Opinion polls show strong opposition across the board to a House of Lords selected primarily through patronage. There is roughly equal support, in the polls I have seen, for some form of elected membership and the appointment of Members who are genuinely independent. Of course, it is perfectly possible to design a system that provides for both. In his first major speech on the workings of the House of Lords in July, the Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, counselled caution, saying that Labour’s case for substantive reform should be considered carefully. That is good advice, but the Lord Speaker went on to warn that rewiring the system risked blowing “a constitutional fuse”. However, as any decent fire officer will tell you, the consequences of not upgrading an ageing, outdated system are far more serious than just blowing a fuse. That is true for the Lords both metaphorically and quite literally.

This week I attended the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, where we heard the long view from Professor Alvin Jackson of Christ’s College, Cambridge. Drawing on examples from across Europe, he presented a historical analysis of why some union states endure while others fall apart. Key factors include whether there is a willingness to engage with modernisation and constitutional reform; whether bigger partners are ready, and generous enough, to share power across the union; whether there are sustained efforts to build a shared vision and identity that can bind diverse populations together; and, critically, whether institutions are fit for purpose to support that shared endeavour. No doubt there are different views on the future of the union and on whether Gordon Brown’s specific proposal to replace the Lords with a senate is the right one, but Labour is committed to better representation of the nations and regions. Perhaps we could take the opportunity to consult on how to deliver much fairer representation of women and Black and ethnic-minority communities too.

This Bill proposes a framework and timetable for consultation, including with devolved Governments and constitutional experts and potentially through citizens’ assemblies. Of course, not all expertise, wisdom and practical experience resides in this place. It would be quite wrong for unelected Peers to mark our own homework or effectively wield a veto. It is not the job of the Lords to obstruct, delay or dodge its own reform. We cannot be sure what conclusions the proposed consultation would reach, but we do know that the public want parliamentary institutions that better represent their interests and are more accountable to them, because at the heart of this debate is the need to rebuild trust in democracy. The definition of democracy is that authority rests with the people, so it is high time to ask the British public how politics can best serve them.