Clement Attlee once joked that the House of Lords is “like a glass of champagne that has stood for five days”. In fact, it is more like a double magnum, its contents chosen by the current prime minister. Since the House of Lords Act 1999, the chamber has swelled by a third to the unruly size of 800. This makes it one of the largest chambers in the world, second only to China’s single house. David Cameron has announced more appointments each year than any of his predecessors since life peerages were introduced. He is further inclined to pack the House with members of his own party and is expected to make a new round of appointments today. Instead he should slow down and consider carefully the danger such actions pose to the constitution.
Historically, the House of Lords has been dominated by the Conservatives, giving Labour governments a rough ride and Tory governments a wide berth. This was of little benefit to voters, who are entitled to an upper house that meticulously scrutinises the work of government, whatever its party colours. Inheriting a strongly Conservative Lords, Tony Blair began to rebalance the House, packing it with more Labour peers and disennobling most hereditary peers, who were overwhelmingly Tory-leaning. Mr Cameron therefore inherited a hung Lords, but has tried with even greater speed to pack it. Research published by the Constitution Unit at University College London shows that he has appointed an average of 40 peers a year to Mr Blair’s 37 and Margaret Thatcher’s 18. Moreover, 62 per cent of these appointments have been members of his own party, to Mr Blair’s 43 per cent and Baroness Thatcher’s 58 per cent. The prime minister has also instructed the Appointments Commission to sanction fewer independent crossbenchers.
Mr Cameron justifies such behaviour by claiming that the composition of the second chamber should reflect that of the Commons. This is an unprecedented constitutional position. It is also misguided. First, it undermines the upper house’s democratic function. The Lords does not exist to provide an older and wiser echo of whatever is decided in the Commons. Rather its proper role is to provide detailed scrutiny and expert forensic analysis by experienced policymakers and professionals.
It does this best when it is evenly balanced, providing a check on the great power that the electoral system gives the prime minister in the Commons. Second, indexing the Lords’ composition to that of the Commons creates an ever-inflating second chamber, as successive prime ministers appoint new peers to massage the Lords into the mould of the Commons. This leads to unnecessary overcrowding and expense.
The solution is to make each round of appointments, rather than the House as a whole, more representative of the most recent general election. Some appointments must also be reserved for crossbenchers. The presence of such independent experts affords the House much of its legitimacy.
Advertisement
Peers’ exit routes must also be revised. Since last year they have been able to retire voluntarily. Few have taken advantage of this new privilege. Instead the government should consider doing away with life peerages and introducing limited, albeit long and renewable, terms. If renewal were conditional on real legislative or deliberative contribution, peers would be incentivised to provide value for money.
There is little appetite for wholesale reform of the upper house, nor should there be. Though the Lords have got more muscular since 1999, their powers are still limited by the fallout from 1911, when they elicited outrage by blocking Lloyd George’s People’s Budget. Due to party political games, the House now risks falling into disrepute again.