We need to start differentiating between honorary and working peerages
4 min read
How we can reduce the size of the House of Lords, while also protecting its constitutional purpose?
There are 787 peers, making the Lords the second largest legislative Chamber in the world, dwarfed only by the People’s Assembly in China.
Of the 787, there remain 92 hereditary peers – all men – following a compromise agreement in 1999, at the time of the last Labour-led attempt at reform. There are also 26 Bishops of the Church of England (no other church, or religious institution, in England or the other nations, has the automatic right to representation).
There is, quite understandably, a growing sense that this oversized medley of peers needs to be trimmed back
The remainder, including myself, were appointed life peers via a process that has undergone minimal revisions since the position was created in 1958, and is arguably just as unsuitable for a modern, representative Parliament.
Under this system, the ultimate responsibility for appointments lies with the Prime Minister. Admittedly, the House of Lords Appointments Committee (HOLAC) can recommend refusal on grounds of propriety. But even then, as Boris Johnson showed in appointing Lord Cruddas, their recommendation can be overruled.
The normal lists are political, nominated by the leaders of each party, and appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. But there are also a slew of posts – cabinet secretaries, heads of the armed forces, Metropolitan Police commissioners and others – that get slipped in without much notice or comment.
Then there are those who receive a peerage merely as an honour for their achievements – in sport, arts or other fields – or substantial contributions to a political party.
There is, quite understandably, a growing sense that this oversized medley of peers needs to be trimmed back, and while various solutions have been optimistically floated over the years, none have been unanimously embraced or managed to stick.
The latest of these is the new Labour government proposal to enforce retirement at the end of the Parliament in which a peer turns 80. However, this would, paradoxically, mean a greater reduction in Labour peers, who are currently outnumbered 271 to 177 by Tories.
There is, in my view, a simpler and more logical way of reducing the numbers and, at the same time, protecting the original purpose of the Upper Chamber. I proposed this solution in the King’s Speech debate, then followed it up at question time, and I believe it draws widespread support from both sides of the aisle.
Peers should be divided into “honorary peers” – those who treat it as an honour for their achievements – and “working peers” – those who see it as a political appointment. Only working peers would be expected to attend and to speak, vote and participate in other proceedings of the House, and receive payment.
Existing peers would be given the option, and all new peerages would be in one or other of the categories. The announcement of lists of working peers would be made separately from the regular Birthday and New Year's Honours lists, on the basis of nominations by party leaders, as at present.
This would have the likely effect of reducing the size of the House to about 450 to 500, looking at those who have been regularly attending recently. And I think this could be done without legislation by a decision of the House and approval by the King.
Meanwhile the removal of the hereditaries, maybe with a few of the effective ones being offered life peerages, would also help to reduce numbers.
The replacement of the non-elected Chamber with a Senate of the Nations and Regions is a longer-term desirable reform, in my view. But, in a world where sweeping reforms are often buried by bureaucracy, I believe the solution I have outlined above is an excellent – and achievable – first step towards this greater goal.
Lord Foulkes is a Labour life peer
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
