Cut out cronyism to strengthen the Lords

Having fewer peers would make prime ministers think carefully about the calibre of appointees

Areport by the Lord Speaker’s Committee is expected this week to recommend the means of reducing the size of the House of Lords. More than 800 peers are eligible to sit there, at a considerable expense to the taxpayer that does not reflect their constitutional necessity. One proposal is to limit the length of service there to 15 years; another is to operate a “two out, one in” principle.

If one assumes the House is a valuable part of the legislature – and it certainly has potential to be – then its present constitution is unfeasible. First Tony Blair, and then David Cameron, went on binges of peerage creations; Mr Cameron put 57 people in the Lords in nine months between May 2015 and February 2016, with 13 more in his heavily criticised resignation list. He had already put an unprecedented 236 in during his first five years in Downing Street, partly egged on by Nick Clegg, and with utter disregard for the practical consequences. Lord Fowler, the Lord Speaker, is now trying to clear up the mess.

It isn’t just numbers that are the problem: it is the quality of some of those in the Lords, who are unequal to the responsibilities of being a legislator in a revising chamber. The idea of eliminating peers after 15 years’ service would compound this problem: not everyone who entered the House before 2002 has shown distinction either, but before the cult of naked cronyism came to govern appointments the calibre was unquestionably higher than it generally has been among the more recent creations. To remove those appointed before that date would severely impede the ability of the Upper House to do its job. But the desire of Lord Fowler (who himself would be made to leave under that plan) to make the chamber more efficient and manageable is essential if the Lords is not to fall into complete disrepute, so some means of doing it must be found.

It requires not just a reduction in numbers, but also a reform of patronage, to avoid history repeating itself. In the first instance Parliament must settle on a total number of eligible peers. It need not be anything like so large as the House of Commons, with its 650 MPs: 400, or exactly half the size of the present chamber, would be ample. The reform then becomes simple: each party or group would vote for which half of their number to retain and which to exclude. There are 204 life peers taking the Tory whip; they would choose 102 of their number to stay. The 148 cross-benchers,

195 Labour and 96 Lib Dem lifers would do the same. The 24 bishops would choose 12 of their number, and the 92 hereditaries would do the same.

There is no need for rigid centralisation: each group or party could decide how it was going to choose the winners and losers. Almost certainly, some of the more elderly, and some of the younger ones who feel they are not making, and are not capable of making, the contribution they might, would decide to leave before the process of elimination started, which would make matters easier for the electorate.

Then, when the new House is constituted, the question of patronage must be addressed: once a maximum number is set, a new peer could be admitted only when one dies or retires. So long as we have an established church the number of bishops should stay at 12, and so long as it is decided that 46 hereditaries should sit – and for reasons of history and continuity they should – then the party groups within that number should choose replacements.

The party numbers may change gradually over the years: the Lib Dems have a disproportionate number of peers compared with their support in the country, and either a Tory or Labour prime minister would probably want to replace a departing Lib Dem with one of their own.

One thing would be for certain, however: with relatively little patronage at his or her disposal, a prime minister would have to think very carefully about whom he bestows it upon. A crony who has done minor favours for a prime minister in Downing Street for a couple of years would have to be truly exceptional to be considered a better addition to the revising chamber than a former Cabinet minister of long standing who is generally agreed to have served the country well.

The absence of a limit on patronage has not only caused the present problem, but has reduced the respect in which that part of the public that is engaged with politics holds the House of Lords. And not least for that reason, sensible reforms such as these cannot come too soon.