Peer review

The House of Lords is too big and unwieldy. Everyone agrees that this is so, but there is less of a consensus over what can be done about it. A few years ago, life peers were given the opportunity to retire, which more than 60 have chosen to do, though not enough to counter the propensity of party leaders to create more.

Today there are close to 800 members and, unlike in the days before the bulk of hereditaries were ejected, most are active. A report from a committee commissioned by Lord Fowler, the Speaker, has recommended capping the size of the House at 600 and linking its composition to general election results. In addition, peers would serve a maximum of 15 years and no party would be allowed an absolute political majority. The target of 600 would be achieved by an accelerated “two-out, one-in” programme of departures.

There is much to commend these proposals, provided that what makes the Lords unique and worthwhile is preserved – the unrivalled expertise of many of its members. The committee proposes retaining at least 20 per cent of the seats for independent cross-benchers, but arguably this is not ambitious enough. Why not reserve one third of the seats for peers chosen for their outstanding abilities, rather than party loyalties? The danger is that those who choose to step down will be the very peers whose presence in the chamber enriches it and who contribute most to its principal function, which is to revise and improve Bills.

These reforms do not require legislation but will need cross-party agreement and the Lib Dems, who have more than 100 peers, may balk at linking their numbers to recent poor election results. But this reform is overdue. They need to get on with it.