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

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who is, if I may say so, a living embodiment of why it is a good idea that we move forward and reform the House of Lords rather than abolish it. It is similarly a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness who introduced this legislation. I applaud her courage massively and recognise the passion and the articulation with which she spoke and presented her case. I have looked very closely at the draft legislation that she proposed and her case is to abolish the House of Lords, not to reform it. This is where I part company with her most materially.

The noble Baroness presented her case with articulation. She spoke of reform as being a process and not an event. I agree very much with that; it is true and that is why I cannot go along with the thesis that it is a good idea to abolish the House of Lords and to present a blank sheet of paper and say, “What do we do next?” This is essentially what the noble Baroness is proposing.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that reform is necessary, and the noble Baroness is to be congratulated, perhaps, on presenting us with a precipice as to what happens if we do not reform. There will be a growing clamour for abolition, and that would be a mistake. There are people in the public who think we are here every day in our ermine. I meet them and they say, “Have you been in your ermine today”? I have been in my ermine three times: once on joining here, once for a presentation of the Queen’s Speech, as it was then, and once when a noble friend was introduced to the Lords. No more than that. There is a misunderstanding of what we do.

I looked at the evidence closely and recently attended a talk by constitutional expert Ian Dunt, who is very much on the left of politics, not the right. I anticipated that he would lambast the Lords and say that it should be scrapped, but he did not. He said that if there is one part of the constitution that should be reformed and essentially left more or less as it is, it is the House of Lords. He said that because, successively, we have acted as a bastion for opinion when the House of Commons has got it wrong; we have done that over a succession of issues where opinion runs high, such as student fees, Brexit and Rwanda. This House gives a chance to represent a different view from the elected Chamber, and that is important.

The work we do not just in the House but in Committee is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has said, with thousands of practical amendments to improve legislation. That role of scrutiny is vital in everything that is done in this House. But tackling the great growth of subordinate legislation is something that we do, too. These things are worth retaining.

That does not mean that we should not be reforming the House of Lords. I will say a bit about some of the strands that that represents, if I may. I recognise the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, has done on this, which was the total opposite of self-serving. The work was not to her advantage or that of the people on the committee; they did it based on what is best moving forward for this House. I strongly support the work that they have been doing—it is to be applauded.

That should be joined with something on appointments. I recognise that that was not part of the brief that the committee had on attendance and retirement, but we need to look very closely at what is happening on appointments. More people have joined than have left the Lords in this Session, although we have lost the remaining hereditary Peers. There have been more appointments made and we need to look at the role of HOLAC and put it on a statutory footing. We should alter the way that appointments are made, and I agree that probably the way forward is a commission to look at appointments. That should come with some urgency.

This House has totally changed over 80 years. The noble Lord mentioned the Life Peerages Act 1958. Until then, all appointments to this House were hereditary. That is only 80 years ago. Now, all appointments to this House are life peerages. Effectively, the hereditary principle was abolished in 1999, although we retained—I think this was a mistake—the hereditary by-elections. I say this with due respect; I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is speaking later, so there is nothing personal in this. I recognise that many of those who have joined through that route are worthy of their appointments, but it was very much a Gilbert and Sullivan or Heath Robinson sort of construct, in a very British way. If we had not had the hereditary by-elections, we would have seen the remaining hereditaries wither on the vine, and that would have been a way forward. Anyway, that is history.

What is important is to look at the principle of appointment to see whether we should do something for the nations and regions in terms of appointments: they are underrepresented in this House, that is quite true, and that would be a way of putting it right. I personally agree with the Bishops and the Archbishops, though I think we can extend that to other religious leaders; I think that would strengthen our House, constitution and country. That is something worth looking at.

I have struggled with the principle of an elected House of Lords. It is difficult to deny the importance of elections. We have elections for the other place. However, I recognise—and it is strengthened by my participation in this House—that there are loads of Peers, many of whom are here today, who would not dream of standing in elections, and they probably would not be returned if they did. But they strengthen this House immeasurably. We risk losing that very valuable element, especially on the Cross Benches, which includes many lawyers, retired diplomats, trade union leaders and so on. They are people who would probably not stand in an election. Do we want to risk that? It is something that needs to be looked at on balance as to whether we have an elected element but retain appointments so that we are able to play to the strength of a House of Lords with all the expertise that conjures up.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this legislation. It is an important piece of legislation, at least to focus our minds. I do not think the way forward is to abolish the House of Lords and ask what we do next, which is essentially throwing all the pieces up in the air. That is not the way to go about it; we do not need revolution, but we certainly need evolution—and quickly, in my humble opinion.