House of Lords Reform

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered House of Lords reform.

It is a pleasure to bring this debate to Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform. A few weeks ago, I showed a group of United States doctors around Parliament, which involved sitting in the Public Gallery of the House of Lords, looking at the King Charles throne, the Woolsack and a scattering of some quite elderly peers. One doctor said, “How do these guys get in here?”. When I answered that they were appointed by their mates, they all laughed—surely I was joking. Sadly, I was not joking.

Reform of the House of Lords has been on the cards for centuries. The House was actually abolished in 1649, but was reinstated a few years later, and it has been the subject of intense debate ever since. The idea of unelected peers having inherited access to Parliament alongside crony appointees controlling the laws that Parliament produces is clearly ridiculous. It is no wonder that the crisis of confidence in our political system is at an all-time high.

This Government have actually taken quite big strides—probably more than others—on the long overdue removal of hereditary peers. I also welcome proposals to impose a retirement age and a minimum participation requirement, but we cannot afford to push this constitutional necessity further down the road. I will take this opportunity to set out the case for reform of the House of Lords and how we can go about implementing it.

The function of our second Chamber is to scrutinise and amend legislation passed by the elected Commons. There are many exceptional Lords who do a really good job at that, but their contribution is undermined by their complete lack of legitimacy. It is simply not right that our Parliament has more unelected lawmakers than lawmakers with a mandate from the people. During the Makerfield by-election, the Prime Minister called it “scandalous” and expressed support for an early change to the Lords.

One of the things that has most surprised me is learning that the House of Lords remains a self-governing institution. In the last session, we saw a handful of unelected peers, many of whom were rejected by the voters at the last election, abuse that fact to stall the progression of legislation passed by the elected Commons.

The other place is also deeply unrepresentative of our country. Over 55% of peers live in London and the south-east. I know that our Prime Minister is very concerned with that, and that he has called for a senate of nations and regions to replace the Lords, so that every corner of our country is properly represented in both of our Chambers.

The public also want change. Only 16% support the current status quo; 70% have little or no confidence in the institution, and a majority want an entirely elected upper Chamber. The voters gave a very clear mandate for a Labour manifesto that included a commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber, more representative of the regions and nations.

What could a second Chamber look like? That is a complex issue; we should convene a commission of citizens and experts to decide on its role and make-up. It should still absolutely be possible to retain the expertise that we have there, and that is exactly what our manifesto has committed us to.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has made a good start on setting out his case. However, does he not see the irony in calling for an appointed committee of the public and experts to look at how democratic the House of Lords is?

[Dr Opher]

I would say that we need experts to look at how our democracy works and to devise a better way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The question of House of Lords reform is obviously not new; successive Administrations of all political colours have grappled with it for decades—indeed, for more than a century. They have discovered that constitutional upheaval tends to be far easier to promise in opposition than to deliver successfully in government.

The history reminds us of a fundamental truth: constitutional reform must always be approached with care, caution, balance and a clear understanding of the consequences. We would all agree that the House of Lords is far from perfect—certainly, no one from the official Opposition would suggest otherwise—but it performs a vital constitutional function. It provides thorough legislative scrutiny, brings into Parliament unmatched expertise from the law, science, business and public service, and holds Ministers to account.

Crucially, the House of Lords serves as a vital check on the Executive, ensuring that legislation is properly stress tested and challenging Governments when they get things wrong. Having been a member of the Government Whips Office before the last election, I can say that that is not always convenient for Governments, but it is a core constitutional function. Any sensible reform must preserve and enhance that scrutiny, and never dismantle it purely for political convenience or advantage. That is where we have serious concerns about the Government’s approach.

As has been said, in its 2024 manifesto Labour declared that the House of Lords was too large and promised to reduce its numbers; since then, the Government’s actions have told a rather different story. Even after expelling the hereditary peers, the House of Lords has about 800 Members—more than when the Government first declared that it was bloated. Apparently, the second Chamber is too big unless Downing Street happens to be the one packing the red Benches. I hope the Minister can explain that contradiction. Appointments must reflect the expertise that Parliament requires, not serve as a patronage machine to manufacture a compliant legislature.

There is then the Government’s more radical proposition: abolishing the Lords entirely in favour of an elected senate of the nations and regions. But ambition is no substitute for detail. What powers would such a body possess? How would it be elected? Critically, how would it relate to the democratically elected House of Commons? Those are not minor procedural queries. The fact that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the mover of the motion, seems to answer the question by saying that an unelected panel should decide highlights the fact that Labour had no idea what the radical Lords reform in its manifesto meant and had no plan to deliver it.

If an elected second Chamber can claim equal democratic legitimacy, we invite constitutional gridlock, competing mandates and perpetual legislative paralysis. Our parliamentary system works precisely because it respects the primacy of this elected House, and has done for a century and more, while giving the revising Chamber the freedom to scrutinise. We should not discard that balance for an untested experiment. When will the Minister launch the proposed public consultation? Or are the Government expecting Parliament to sign a blank cheque on Lords reform?

Let me turn to immediate measures. The Opposition engaged constructively with the House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee. We agree that peers must actively contribute; however, we hold grave reservations about an arbitrary retirement age of 80. The distinct value of the other place lies in wisdom, institutional memory and lifetime service, so we should assess peers on the quality of their contribution, not the date on their birth certificate. Sensible reform is possible, just as previous Conservative Governments enabled voluntary retirement and expulsions for misconduct. We are ready to discuss appointments, size and standards, but the constitution belongs not to the Government of the day but to our nation.

[Andrew Rosindell]

On the question of appointments, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is only right that the third largest party in this country should have some representation in the House of Lords today?

[Mike Wood]

It is beyond me to decide who should and should not be in the House of Lords any time soon, but I note that last month the hon. Gentleman’s party leader was talking about flooding the House of Lords with hundreds of new Reform peers, and he said that if that did not work to get Reform’s legislative agenda through, he would have a referendum on abolishing the House of Lords. Reform’s position seems a little confused.

The second Chamber exists not to make life comfortable for Ministers but to hold power to account. The test of any reform is not whether it delivers a pliant Parliament, but whether it serves the British people. That is the test against which His Majesty’s Opposition will hold the Government to account.