Mike Wood

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.