Second Reading

The Government, represented by the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which aims to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Minister argued that in the 21st century, it is indefensible for people to have a position in Parliament based solely on their ancestry. He stated that this reform is a matter of principle for the Government, committed to fairness and equality. The official opposition, led by the shadow Minister John Glen, responded by criticising the Bill as lacking ambition and being rushed through without proper scrutiny or cross-party engagement. The opposition argued that this piecemeal reform should be part of a broader package of changes to the House of Lords, and expressed concern about the potential for the Government to pack the upper chamber with political appointees. The wide-ranging debate that followed saw contributions from both new and experienced Members. Several maiden speeches were delivered, with new MPs outlining their priorities and commitment to serving their constituents. The debate touched on a variety of topics, including the role and legitimacy of the hereditary peers, the representation of different faiths and regions in the House of Lords, and the broader question of whether the upper chamber should be elected or appointed. Conservative members expressed concerns about the speed and scope of the reforms, arguing for a more cautious, incremental approach that would preserve the expertise and independence of the House of Lords. Some called for the Government to go further, such as by removing the bishops' seats or introducing a mandatory retirement age. Labour and Liberal Democrat speakers, on the other hand, generally welcomed the Bill as a positive first step, but urged the Government to pursue more comprehensive reform. The debate highlighted the complexities and sensitivities surrounding the future of the House of Lords, with Members debating issues of democracy, tradition, and the appropriate balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament. Ultimately, the House voted to reject the opposition's reasoned amendment and give the Bill a Second Reading, paving the way for it to proceed to the next stage of the legislative process.