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

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, at its heart, this is a simple and modest Bill. It asks the Government to do something that they have already promised to do: to consult on proposals for replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber and then report transparently on what they have heard. But it does something else that is just as important. It requires the Government not just to consult but to respond. It requires Ministers to tell Parliament and the public what they intend to do next, because the purpose of the Bill is not to produce another report destined for a shelf in Whitehall. We have plenty of those already. The purpose is to make sure a process begins, and, crucially, that it keeps going. The ball must keep moving.

The future of this House has been debated for longer than most of us can remember. Every political party has, at one point or another, argued that the House of Lords should be reformed, replaced or abolished altogether. We have never been short of ideas, and we have never been short of debate, but we have been short of action. That is why this Bill matters. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that better represents the nations and regions of the UK, and to consult on proposals for achieving that aim. This Bill simply seeks to give effect to that commitment.

One promise remains outstanding, and no clear plan has been put out for delivering it: the commitment to consult on the future of the second Chamber itself. If the Government remain committed to that pledge, why should consultation be delayed indefinitely? If it was important enough to place in the manifesto to the electorate, why should Parliament hesitate to begin delivering it?

I come to this debate from a rather different perspective from many who have spoken on these issues over the years. I am the youngest Member of your Lordships’ House and I come from a working-class background in Wales, which is not traditionally the route by which people arrive here. This is also my first Private Member’s Bill. My own views on the constitutional future of Wales are no secret. Some may find it curious that someone who supports Welsh independence has chosen to bring forward a Bill about reforming a Chamber within the UK Parliament, but I see no contradiction. Whatever constitutional future we each believe in, we should all want the institutions that exist today to command public confidence.

Like many people from communities across Wales and beyond, my route into public life was anything but conventional. A lot of my politics is shaped by my experience of growing up as an unpaid carer for my father, and my focus was—and continues to be—how we improve people’s lives. The way decisions are made and who makes them plays a big part in that. Westminster was not part of my everyday conversations growing up. It felt distant—something that happened somewhere else. I suspect many people still feel exactly the same today. Experiences like that shape the way that you see public institutions. They make you ask who is represented, whose voices are heard and who feels left out altogether.

For me, that is what this Bill is really about. Growing up on Ynys Môn, this place could not have felt further away. In fact, my noble friend Lord Wigley was the first Member of your Lordships’ House I had ever met, and what a formidable advocate he is for Cymru. Having now spent more than two years here, I have a far greater appreciation of the work the House does and the contributions made by Members from all sides and none. But I still think that many members of the public have perfectly reasonable questions about how this House is put together.

Being appointed by former Prime Ministers is not a process that most people would immediately recognise as a modern form of democratic accountability—neither are Bishops, specifically from the Church of England, having 26 reserved spaces in a place that scrutinises new laws for us all to live under. We should not be surprised when people ask questions about an institution with more than 800 Members carrying titles such as Lords and Baronesses. We can explain the work that we do here and rightly point to its value, but we should also understand why some people look at this place and think it belongs to another age. I suspect that, for some people, the only Lords and Baronesses they have encountered are the ones they have seen in “Bridgerton”.

Public institutions are strongest when people feel that they have helped shape them. They are weakest when people feel that decisions are being made for them rather than with them. As a Welsh Member of this House, I am conscious that debates such as this can sometimes sound like Westminster talking to itself. But they are not. These questions matter in Holyhead and the Highlands, in Cardiff and Carlisle, and in Belfast and Birmingham, because they are ultimately questions about who has a voice, who feels represented and who feels heard.

The Wales I grew up in is the Wales that voted for devolution. A previous Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, famously described devolution as a “process, not an event”. That is a helpful quote to consider when we look to make change here, too. Our communities have changed and expectations have changed, yet when it comes to the second Chamber the debate often feels stuck in the same place. Whether one supports independence, federalism, further devolution or the union in its present form, there is a legitimate question about whether Parliament’s institutions properly reflect the nations and regions they are intended to serve. That is not a question that should be answered exclusively here within the walls of Westminster.

Some may reasonably ask why we need another consultation when this issue has already been examined by countless commissions, committees and reviews. That is a fair challenge, but the answer is simple. Too often, Lords reform follows a pattern, which we are all quite familiar with. A report is written, conclusions are reached and then everything quietly grinds to a halt. The Bill seeks to break this cycle. It requires the Government not only to listen but to come back and explain what happens next. In short, it seeks to keep the ball moving.

We saw evidence of how strongly people feel about these questions when the Bill received its First Reading earlier this year. Some noble Lords took the unusual step of voicing opposition to what is normally a procedural stage. I mention that not as a criticism but as an illustration. People care deeply about the future of this House and, where there is disagreement, my instinct is not to narrow the conversation but to widen it.

Noble Lords will hold very different views about the future of this House. Those disagreements are fair, but this Bill does not ask anybody to abandon their convictions. It asks a much simpler question: should the public have a voice in determining the future shape of Parliament? If we cannot agree on the answer, surely we can agree on that as a question. That is why the Bill provides for wider public engagement, including citizens’ assemblies and other deliberative approaches. Change should not be something done to people; it should be something done with them.

Before I conclude, I thank those who have helped to inform my thinking as I have brought forward my first Private Member’s Bill. In particular, I am grateful to the Electoral Reform Society for its continued advocacy and campaigning on people’s democratic rights. I am also grateful to my fellow officers on the APG on House of Lords Reform, who include Members in the other place representing Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the Greens. I also wish to thank the students of the politics lab at Edge Hill University, some of whom are here today. Their involvement is a reminder that conversations about the future of our democracy should belong not exclusively to politicians and constitutional experts but to the people who will inherit that future too.

I do not stand here today claiming to have all the answers—I have my own views about the future and other noble Lords will have theirs—but surely the future shape of Parliament is not a question that Parliament should answer alone. The Government promised to consult on that future; this Bill simply asks them to honour that commitment. But it also asks for something more: it asks that consultation be followed by actual action. The people we serve deserve a voice in that conversation, and they deserve to know that, once they have been heard, something will happen as a result. As someone who grew up on a council estate in Ynys Môn, who never imagined that I would one day be standing here introducing a Private Member’s Bill in this House, I find it very difficult to argue against giving people a greater say in decisions about the institutions that govern them. This Bill asks for no more than that—not a conclusion, not a blueprint, just a conversation, and a commitment that once this conversation has taken place it will be followed by a clear statement of what comes next. If we cannot agree on the answer, surely we can agree on the question. After decades of debate, that hardly seems too much to ask for. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I thank all Members who participated in the debate, for just over two hours. We have had a really good debate, with lots of interesting viewpoints, but I was, surprisingly, pleased to hear that the majority of Members who spoke today, barring one or two, support reforming this Chamber. Of course, they do so to different degrees—I understand that—but that is a positive reflection and a step forward, so I am grateful to all those who participated. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, reminded us that all political parties here have made their positions quite well known: they support reform of the House of Lords as well. That is what the position is of all our political parties here. It is just about us getting on with that and making progress.

I would like to rebut and clarify a few points raised in some comments by fellow noble Lords in relation to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, suggested that the Bill would abolish the House of Lords. I clarify that the first sentence of the Bill states that it is about

“the replacement of the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber”.

It is not about having one Chamber in Parliament; it is about the replacement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, raised an interesting point about whether we would want to perhaps change the term “replacement”. I chose that term in this Bill because that is what was in the Labour manifesto; that is what they were elected on, so it is important that that terminology is used because there is a public mandate for that position. But I understand that perhaps it could be perceived in other ways so, just to clarify, that is what it is in relation to. Maybe we could discuss that in Committee.

Some noble Lords raised gridlock, and that has come up often when we have talked about Lords reform. On gridlock of that type, I believe that, in the reforms that we would bring forward, any arrangement that mirrored the current balance of powers, which could be written into reform as it was previously in the House of Lords reform Bill, could avoid those types of scenarios. Disagreement over legislation is a type of conflict, one which can delay but not terminate a Government. We can write that into our reforms, so I do not think we can use it as a reason not to reform this Chamber.

Let me provide clarification on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on who would be consulted. They both raised the fact that I have not included either this Chamber, the other place or some other stakeholders in the Bill. But, as under Clause 1(2)(e), the Bill is not limiting, so it would be open to the Secretary of State to consult others too. If Members feel particularly strongly that a group has not been represented in the Bill, they could bring forward an amendment in Committee to add that group. However, I would hesitate to do that, because I am pretty sure it is covered under subsection (2)(e).

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, looking ahead to an alternative second Chamber, raised the issue of how we look at diversity and its reflection in a future Chamber. That is why I have included the EHRC as a consultee as part of the Bill, because that should be taken into consideration as well.

Many noble Lords made a range of reasonable suggestions for the proposals to be put forward in a public consultation, which I hope the Government are listening to, particularly the comments raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, given the commission that he led previously. We already have lots of good suggestions for what those proposals could be, but the thing is that this was in the Labour manifesto. We are waiting to see what the proposals are from the Government, because there is a mandate for it.

I rebut the point that the public do not care about Lords reform. I know that a lot of noble Lords raised how they have gone into schools and universities to discuss what we do here and hear their views about what a future Parliament should look like. Actually, people are pretty engaged on the topic. If you ask them the questions, they will give you answers. So I dispute that point. A YouGov poll released last night shows yet again that only 12% of the public support the status quo, as in keeping the Chamber as it is. That is a clear mandate for us to get on with it and to respond to the public on what there is a mandate for.

Finally, I must admit that I was thoroughly disappointed with the Minister’s response. The way that this Bill has been drafted is very much in line with what was written in the Labour manifesto. The intervention before the Minister sat down and her response to it show that perhaps there is not an intention to bring this forward before the next general election. In my view, when the public go to the polls and are voting on a manifesto that has been presented to them, that is what a political party is saying that they are going to deliver in that term. If there is not a consultation before the next general election, I do not see that the Government will have carried out their manifesto commitment. Unless there are proposals starting now to be investigated further, it would be very disappointing if, before the general election, that pledge had not even been started.

I do not object to the idea that this House has a job to do, but I ask for transparency. The Government promised this consultation, and that is why I drafted the Bill this way, so it is unfortunate that they have made an argument against their own pledge. All I ask is that we have action. We need a timeline. The Bill I have presented is very modest in what it proposes: having a consultation and a timeline. It does not go as far as I would personally if I was in charge, but this is the manifesto that the Government were elected to deliver.

On that note, I believe that we should trust the people and give them a say, finally, in relation to the future of the Parliament that represents them. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.