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

Lord Scriven Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth; his calm, measured tones are always difficult to follow. I also welcome the introduction of the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She was very clear and put forward a very powerful argument for why the consultation is needed.

Noble Lords will notice I am slightly croaky today—I am not the noble Lord croaker—but I will endeavour to get through this. It was also great to hear the interjection by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord and I have known each other through Sheffield politics for well over 20 years. I have been rather worried recently because we have agreed more than we have disagreed, but I am now going back to our normal knocking 10 bells out of each other, as we do in Sheffield politically.

I should own up: I am on the traditional liberal wing of the Liberal Democrats, and we have been waiting for rather a long time for this kind of debate and for reform of the House of Lords. It was the Parliament Act 1911 that promised a second Chamber on a popular, rather than hereditary, basis. That was 115 years ago. I would guess it is probably the longest-running temporary arrangement in British public life. I welcome the progress so far in this Parliament: the hereditaries have gone, but some have returned quite rightly on their own merit, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will be speaking later.

However, that is only tinkering. We have swapped the accident of birth for the accident of who you know and left the Prime Minister’s patronage exactly where it was. A promise to consult without a date attached is the constitutional equivalent of “The cheque is in the post”. The Liberal Democrat position is long-standing: a fully elected second Chamber, chosen by proportional representation, speaking for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom; the primacy of the Commons will be preserved. But this Bill asks only for a consultation. After 115 years, that is hardly a leap in the dark.

Why an elected Chamber? As a matter of principle in a democracy, I believe the right to make law comes from the people. Not one of the Members of this House, no matter how eminent or detailed we are in legislation, has been chosen by the public to sit here. Not one of us can be held to account or removed by them. That is why this House defers to the elected Commons. It knows it has no mandate. An elected second Chamber would be stronger, not weaker, and it would scrutinise with authority and not, as sometimes we do, with an apology.

I am from Sheffield, like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. When the Electoral Reform Society last analysed this House by region, just under 6% of Peers lived in Yorkshire and the Humber, whereas 24% lived in London and 21% in the south-east. For the poor north-east, it was 3%; for Wales it was 4%, Scotland 7% and Northern Ireland 2.5%. A Chamber meant to speak for the whole country looks more like a London dinner party, and Yorkshire rarely gets invited.

I want to be fair, though, to the Cross-Benchers. Their Members are recommended by the House of Lords Appointments Commission through an open, merit-based process and many are people of real distinction who add to your Lordships’ House. But look how thin this safeguard is: the commission is asked to find just two non-party Peers a year, it has no veto and no say over numbers, and the Prime Minister can still nominate Cross-Benchers directly. In 2020, the Prime Minister overruled the commission’s advice. In other democracies, expertise advises; it does not hold a lifelong right to legislate.

On the party Benches, it is starker. The commission checks propriety, not merit, and suitability is left to the party. In July, with the previous Prime Minister preparing to leave, 26 new life Peers were announced in one of his final acts. Five of these places went to my own party, so we claim no clean hands, but while this system exists every party uses it, and that is exactly why it must go. A panel that can improve patronage is not one that can supply a mandate. We elect our councillors, our mayors and our devolved Parliaments as a matter of principle. Only at the top of the system do we hand out seats by appointment, which is unusual in any other bicameral system in the world, bar one.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I will skip along now to the Bishops’ Benches; people would be very surprised if I did not. In 26 cases, some of our Members are here by job title. Again, they contribute to the work of the House, but, as a matter of principle, nobody voted for these 26 Bishops. They are here because of the posts they hold in the only institution in the whole country that is guaranteed places in Parliament. The 2021 census found that 46% of people in England and Wales described themselves as Christian and over 30% said they had no religion at all. The Church’s own figures put average Sunday attendance in 2024 at just under 1% of the population of England, so 1% attend the Church, but 26 seats are guaranteed automatically in the UK Parliament.

We are told that the Bishops speak for the nation, as they do on many important issues, and not just for the Church. But the record shows they also speak for the Church: during the passage of the equal marriage Bill, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the Church of England’s quadruple lock on marriage and argued to protect it. In 2023, eight Bishops, including one who then sat in this House, signed a submission asking the Government to exempt the confessional from mandatory reporting. Again, that issue has been raised recently.

We have seen a number of occasions when the Bishops have stood up and asked for special privileges in VAT concessions on reforming and doing up churches. When the hereditary Peers Bill came before us, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who I admire greatly, spoke against the amendments to reduce the number of Lords spiritual. Turkeys, I am told, do not vote for Christmas, and it seems that Bishops do not vote for fewer Bishops. This is no criticism of the faith or the individuals, but nobody should sit in our legislature by virtue of a job in one church.

I support the Bill and urge the Government to give us a firm date for consulting, rather than a vague nod to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on securing the Second Reading of her Bill. The noble Baroness has spoken passionately and eloquently in previous debates about reforming your Lordships’ House and today is no different. As a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, pointed out, it is the second debate in two days on constitutional reform. Both debates have been fascinating, and today there has been a considerable range of views about the way forward on reform and, with a couple of exceptions, significant agreement on the need for reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, made clear in his speech, we recognise the many calls for reform across the parties, including in the Labour Party.

Speakers including the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and my noble friends Lady Bolton and Lord Stansgate have also highlighted the many strengths of your Lordships’ House, not least in holding the Executive to account in relation to scrutiny of legislation. The strengths do not negate the need for reform, however. The relationship between your Lordships’ House and the other place has also been highlighted, including in a particularly thought-provoking way by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, in his winding-up remarks.

As we have heard, the Bill before us would require the Government to consult on an alternative second Chamber, with the consultation period beginning within six months of the Act being passed. If passed, the consultation would run for at least 12 weeks. The Secretary of State would be required to publish a summary of responses and a statement detailing the Government’s response within six months of the consultation closing.

The Government have significant sympathy with the central principle behind the Bill. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway made clear in her remarks, the Government have made clear commitments in our manifesto on the reform of the House of Lords. This includes a manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations.

Although we understand the motivation of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in putting the Bill forward, the Government wish to express their reservations about the legislation. The Bill would, in our view, constrain the Government’s ability in how we approach the delivery of our manifesto commitment by prematurely imposing a duty on the Government to consult.

As noble Lords will know, the Government have taken a staged approach to reform of your Lordships’ House. I dispute the noble Baroness’s view that we have not acted or that we are hesitant. We have already made a significant change to your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said, we have removed the hereditary rights of Peers to sit in the House of Lords. Most recently, through the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act, we removed the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House on the basis of hereditary right. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, might call that piecemeal; we think this fulfils a long-held commitment on the part of the Labour Party to do so.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Taylor of Bolton, spoke to the work that the Retirement and Participation Committee undertook on reform, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Taylor. We are really grateful for the committee’s work and for the report published in July. The Government are carefully considering the committee’s recommendations, alongside thoughtful and considered remarks from across the House during the debate on the report in September. The Government will respond to the committee’s recommendations substantively later this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, spoke about the proposals for HOLAC gaining a statutory footing. This proposal was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Stansgate. We have strengthened transparency in the appointments system by introducing a requirement for nominating parties to provide a public citation for appointments. Putting HOLAC on a statutory footing is a matter that this House has considered many times and, as the Leader of the House of Lords has said, this is not the right path to take at this time.

To return the Bill before the House, while we agree with the broad sentiment behind it, the Government’s view is that passing this legislation would require the Government to prematurely consult on an alternative second Chamber. A meaningful consultation on such an important issue demands a careful and thought-through plan. The noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord Wigley and Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lady Taylor, among others, raised important points around regional and national representation. This Government also want to see a second Chamber that better represents the regions and nations, and I am pleased to note this was a manifesto commitment. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, shares that vision. There are many ways of achieving this goal and we owe it to the public to get any consultation and any changes right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, noted the number of previous pieces of work undertaken on House of Lords reform—for example, the royal commission and the number of White Papers that have been produced, including under the previous Labour Government. The coalition Government also attempted—unsuccessfully—to bring about substantial reform, despite the introduction of a Bill. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, chaired the Speaker’s Committee, which made an important contribution to the ongoing debate on reform of the House of Lords.

In response to the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, we recognise that the manner in which and the context of how the Government engage the public on these issues are almost as important as the content of the proposals themselves. The Government are open to different methods of getting input from the public.

To conclude, I thank the noble Baroness once more for leading a very thought-provoking discussion on an alternative second Chamber and how we get there. The Government remain committed to fundamental reform of your Lordships’ House. The Government’s priority is politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. My noble friend Lady O’Grady stressed how vital it is that we restore trust in politics. The Prime Minister set out in his first speech the importance of putting the right values and standards at the heart of government to do so. To achieve this, we have begun the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen.

The Government welcome feedback and continued discussion on the next steps on constitutional reform, and we will consider a range of views and evidence. It is right that the Government decide how to deliver our manifesto commitment and consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber. Although the Bill is well intentioned, in our view it would pre-empt that process. The Government’s ultimate focus is on outcomes rather than process, and our overarching objective is to see a House that is more representative, including of the nations and regions. I believe that this goal is broadly shared across the House, but there are, of course, many different ways of achieving it. Rushing into a consultation for its own sake will not bring us any closer to fulfilling our objectives.

Ultimately, the Government have reservations about this Bill so, unfortunately, I cannot support it on their behalf. However, we look forward to the ongoing conversation both inside and outside this Chamber about how we may bring about lasting reform to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, she said that this Bill would restrict the right of the Government on when and how to consult. As there is a manifesto commitment, what she did not give from the Dispatch Box was a commitment that the Government will start, or even end, the consultation before the general election. Is that the Government’s aim?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It was a manifesto commitment. I cannot say now exactly when it would start. What we do not want is to be bounced into a 12-week consultation from the point at which this Bill would become law.