“It so happens that if there is an institution in Great Britain which is not susceptible of any improvement at all, it is the House of Peers!”—Lord Mount in Iolanthe, by W S Gilbert
When I agreed to an invitation by the Lord Speaker, Norman Fowler, to chair a committee to look at how to reduce the excessive size of the House of Lords, I did so in the knowledge that it was not our task to complete the second stage of the reforms initiated by the House of Lords Act 1999. Indeed, whatever your views on the composition of the House, it is necessary only to glance at the astonishing number of failed attempts at reform since Lloyd George’s day and the 1911 Parliament Act to realise what a hubristic ambition that would be in the current political climate.
In fact, regardless of the political climate, experience since most hereditary peers were removed from parliament under the 1999 Act has shown that the way to improve the House is by taking small, consensual steps which seek to address the weaknesses of the House without imperilling its strengths.
This approach has recently borne fruit with the passage of two private members’ bills allowing for formal retirement and expulsion (under certain conditions) from the House. Yet these Acts will not prevent the House from resuming its seemingly inexorable increase in size which was only temporarily stalled by the exclusion of the hereditary peers. Neither, with Brexit under negotiation, is there any realistic prospect of passing further legislation to address a problem which the House itself agreed unanimously on 5th December 2016 must be tackled.
In considering its approach, the committee placed emphasis on providing the “practical and politically viable options” requested by the House. Accordingly, we agreed that our proposals should be capable of implementation through the House’s existing powers and without legislation. This prevented us from considering matters such as the number of hereditary peers and bishops which can be changed only through legislation.
But equally it has enabled us to put forward a set of proposals which, given a fair wind by the parties, could lead to a House capped at 600 (down from 826) for as long as it remains an appointed chamber. This would not be achieved through stagnation of the membership: rather, fixed terms of 15 years for new members would provide a significant and steady turnover of members, allowing refreshment and political rebalancing of the House. The rebalancing would be achieved by appointing new members in line with the most recent general election results; over time, this combined with fixed terms would bring about a House which reflected the medium-term political views of the country. Meanwhile, the invaluable crossbenchers—independent peers largely appointed for their specialist expertise outside politics—would make up the same proportion of the House as they do at present.
“We agreed that there should be a ‘two-out, one-in’ system until the target of 600 was reached”So much for keeping the House to a reasonable size in the future. But then we had to grapple with the question of how to reduce the number of existing peers—all of whom joined the House on the basis of membership for life—without legislation. The only option was a voluntary system, drawing on the desire of members to reduce the size of the House and underpinned by a working agreement between the parties. We agreed that there should be a “two-out, one-in” system until the target of 600 was reached.
The final issue was who should depart, and when. Much of the debate to date had focused on selecting members for retirement on the basis of age or low attendance. Quite apart from any doctrinal objections, we concluded that these ideas could not work on a practical level because they would affect each of the parties differently, thereby changing the political balance of the House arbitrarily. We also eschewed the upheaval and bad feeling which would inevitably result from forcing parties to vote for who should stay and who should go.
Rather, we proposed “equal contribution,” which would require each party to persuade the same proportion of its pre-2018 members (adjusted for deaths) to retire each year until the target was reached. Each party would work out for itself how to meet those targets. In return, they would be entitled to new appointments as set out above, ensuring that from the start the balance of the House would shift to reflect popular opinion.
It is undeniable that the proposals I have outlined face many potential obstacles, but my fellow committee members and I firmly believe that they offer a viable route to a fair and streamlined House which can perform its invaluable scrutiny function better than ever. The House is expected to debate our report before Christmas; a warm reception may just pave the way to the sort of incremental improvements which Gilbert suggested, tongue firmly in cheek, were not possible.
Read the report by the Lord Speaker's committee on the size of the House
