The federal government’s Home of Lords (Hereditary Friends) Invoice reaches its report stage within the chamber this week – presenting a critical second for potential amendments. Meg Russell argues that friends ought to amend the invoice to position constraints on the Prime Minister’s capability to nominate limitless numbers of members to the chamber. This degree of unconstrained patronage energy is inappropriate in a contemporary age, and brings the Home of Lords and politics as an entire into disrepute. It drives the chamber’s ever-increasing measurement (now standing at over 850), which ought to be capped at no bigger than the Home of Commons. Public opinion overwhelmingly helps this modification, and it has lengthy been the settled view of the Home of Lords. One other legislative automobile to implement this important change could not current itself for many years, so friends ought to seize the chance whereas they’ll.
This week the federal government’s Home of Lords (Hereditary Friends) Invoice enters its essential report stage within the Home of Lords. The sooner levels of the invoice have already been reported on this weblog – it handed by the Commons quickly final 12 months, and accomplished its Lords committee stage in April. The report stage is the time when the invoice is perhaps amended, and this publish argues that it ought to be.
The invoice because it stands delivers on only one facet of the federal government’s agenda for Lords reform: to take away the remaining hereditary friends from the chamber. However many different essential proposals for Lords reform stay on the desk. Probably the most essential has been below dialogue for a few years, each within the Home of Lords and outdoors: the unconstrained nature of prime ministerial appointments, which drive the chamber’s ever-increasing measurement. Now could be the time lastly to take care of these issues. This publish summarises 10 the explanation why.
1. Prime ministers can’t resist patronage, and the chamber will get ever bigger
Beginning with the fundamentals, there are at present no constraints in anyway (besides the ‘court docket of public opinion’) on the variety of appointments that the Prime Minister could make to the Home of Lords. She or he can doubtlessly appoint any variety of folks at any time. The file of some prime ministers has been higher than others, however most can not resist overusing this energy. After the chamber’s final important reform, when the vast majority of hereditary friends departed in 1999, it had 666 members. As we speak, it has over 850. Because the graph illustrating this era reveals, with a number of exceptions (notably throughout Gordon Brown’s and Theresa Could’s premierships), the chamber’s measurement has tended to develop persistently year-on-year. That is clearly unsustainable.
Dimension of the Home of Lords 2000 – 30 June 2025

Supply: Home of Lords Info Workplace. All figures are for January except in any other case acknowledged.
2. The issue has been properly understood for properly over 20 years (certainly arguably for over 300)
Greater than 20 years in the past, in 2003, Tony Blair’s Labour authorities revealed a white paper (pdf) proposing that the remaining hereditary friends ought to be eliminated, and the Home of Lords managed right down to not more than 600 members. This was by no means acted upon. In response to that white paper, the Structure Unit revealed an evaluation (pdf), exhibiting that with out constraints the scale of the chamber would proceed to spiral ever upwards – because it has subsequently proved to do. In 2011, following massive numbers of appointments by Prime Minister David Cameron, the Unit revealed a report (pdf) supported by quite a few cross-party figures (together with former Conservative Lord Chancellor Lord (James) Mackay of Clashfern, former Labour Chief of the Home Baroness (Margaret) Jay of Paddington, Crossbencher and future Lord Speaker Baroness (Frances) D’Souza, and former Commons Speaker Baroness (Betty) Boothroyd) calling for a moratorium on Lords appointments till settlement on a brand new system was reached. In 2015, the Unit revealed an additional report modelling the scale of the chamber below varied appointment eventualities, exhibiting the way it may simply come to exceed 1000, and even 2000, friends. This helped to encourage the institution of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Dimension of the Home (which is mentioned beneath).
However the issue of government overappointment to the Home of Lords didn’t start in 1999, and even with the creation of life peerages in 1958. It additionally existed below the previous hereditary system. Figures within the desk beneath are compiled from the historic chapter of my 2013 guide on the chamber:
This demonstrates that the issue has existed for tons of of years, and accelerates over time. Solely in 1999 did the scale of the chamber considerably drop, due to the removing of most hereditary friends. Overappointment was regularly controversial all through this era. Certainly the primary invoice in search of to constrain the variety of appointments to the Home of Lords was proposed in 1719.
3. The issue can’t be fastened with out laws
Constraining the Prime Minister’s patronage energy can solely be achieved by laws. Whereas optimists have hoped for years that prime ministers is perhaps persuaded to undertake self-restraint, this has repeatedly failed. The temptation to overuse patronage, to reward particular folks or to realize get together political benefit within the chamber, proves simply too nice.
There are numerous different concepts for incremental Home of Lords reform. Notably, the 2024 Labour Get together manifesto dedicated to introducing a retirement age, participation necessities, and harder mechanisms for eradicating ‘disgraced’ members. Amendments had been proposed on all of those issues at Lords committee stage of the present invoice, however the authorities has urged that they might be addressed with out laws. It’s due to this fact urging friends to be affected person, promising discussions after the invoice has handed. However coping with overappointment can’t be managed on this means.
Importantly, coping with the scale of the chamber additionally can’t be achieved solely by these sorts of mechanisms to hasten departures; it requires restraints on what number of might be added. That is illustrated by the truth that within the 12 months for the reason that July 2024 basic election, roughly 80 new members have joined the Home of Lords. That is already practically sufficient to cancel out the variety of hereditary friends departing.
4. One other legislative automobile won’t current itself any time quickly
As emphasised in a earlier weblog publish, legislative automobiles for Home of Lords reform come round very hardly ever. That is the primary authorities invoice on the topic to succeed in the chamber for 26 years – for the reason that Home of Lords Act 1999. The final such invoice earlier than that had applied a minor change 36 years earlier. There have been a number of different authorities initiatives on Lords reform over this era, most of which failed. Some Non-public Members’ Payments have succeeded on minor issues, however they’ll simply be blocked – significantly if the federal government is hostile to them. Proper now, the Home of Lords has a legislative automobile in entrance of it which is definite to cross. If friends need change, they need to seize it.
5. That is the settled will of the Home of Lords
In the meantime it’s properly established that the Home of Lords, on a cross-party foundation, does need change. The chamber’s rising measurement and limitless appointments have lengthy been a serious preoccupation. For instance, on the launch of the Structure Unit’s 2015 report indicated above, former Labour Chief Whip within the chamber Lord (Bruce) Grocott argued that the scale of the chamber was ‘verging on the ridiculous and it must be handled’. In 2016, the Lords debated and unanimously agreed a movement ‘that this Home believes that its measurement ought to be decreased, and strategies ought to be explored by which this might be achieved’. Instantly afterwards, the cross-party Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Dimension of the Home was established by Lord (Norman) Fowler (his two predecessors have additionally spoken out clearly on the issue). The committee, chaired by Crossbencher Lord (Terry) Burns, was charged with contemplating how the scale of the chamber might be saved sustainable. It reported in 2017, recommending that the scale of the Home of Lords ought to be introduced right down to no bigger than the Home of Commons, and that after this was achieved future appointments ought to be made on a ‘one out, one in’ foundation. Till the scale goal was reached, appointments ought to be on the premise of ‘two out, one in’. The committee’s report was debated within the Home of Lords, and extensively welcomed. It was additionally supported by the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), which described ‘addressing the scale of the Chamber… [as] an indispensable crucial’. The Burns committee continued to report frequently, typically with clear disappointment on the Prime Minister’s failure to point out self-restraint.
6. Additionally it is overwhelmingly supported by the general public
Crucially, the general public overwhelmingly helps this modification. In 2022, a survey discovered that simply 3% believed there ought to be no restrict on the scale of the Home of Lords, whereas 65% believed that it ought to be no greater than the Home of Commons (amounting to an amazing 96% of respondents expressing a desire on the query). A model new ballot, revealed forward of the report stage, reinforces these findings and goes additional. Requested to decide on whether or not the Prime Minister ‘ought to be capable of determine what number of new members are appointed every year, with no restrict on the scale of the chamber’ or ‘ought to be restricted to appointing no extra new members every year than the quantity who depart the chamber, in order that its measurement doesn’t develop’ simply 4% selected the established order choice, in opposition to 79% supporting change – amounting to 95% of those that expressed a desire (i.e. as soon as respondents selecting ‘don’t know or can’t determine’ are excluded).
The identical ballot reveals that help for limiting the Prime Minister’s appointments is considerably increased than that for eradicating the hereditary friends (which nonetheless has majority help, at 60%). Requested to decide on between 4 choices: merely eradicating the hereditary friends, doing so alongside inserting limits on the Prime Minister’s patronage, introducing appointment limits whereas permitting the hereditary friends to remain, or doing neither, solely 3% supported the primary choice – which is the federal government’s present place. The bulk (56%) most popular a mix of eradicating the hereditary friends and inserting a restrict on the variety of appointments, whereas 22% supported limits on appointments however retention of the hereditary friends. It is perhaps stated that the general public desires the federal government to return to its 2003 white paper (see level 2 above).
7. Change is required to constrain future prime ministers, not simply this one
As already indicated, some prime ministers make extra restricted use of the patronage energy than others (the variety of appointments below Keir Starmer has already been comparatively excessive, although this isn’t wholly uncommon at the beginning of a parliament). However making this modification is not only focused at present Prime Minister; it will take care of a historic drawback and constrain any future Prime Minister who may not train self-restraint. Notably, an article within the Could 2025 concern of Prospect journal recognized the unconstrained capability to ‘flood’ the Home of Lords as a key danger when it comes to ‘Why British democracy is susceptible to a Trump-style takeover’.
8. The current system appears to be like weird and outdated
Checked out objectively, the truth that a Prime Minister has unrestrained energy to nominate folks to at least one chamber of the legislature is absolutely fairly extraordinary within the fashionable age. Nothing comparable exists in some other democracy world wide. Additionally it is well-known that the Home of Lords is the one second chamber on this planet to be bigger than its respective first chamber (most are considerably smaller), and it’s also the one one to don’t have any measurement restrict in any respect. Whereas some second chambers embody small numbers of members appointed by the manager (e.g. 11 within the Irish Senate, 12 within the Indian Council of States), mass appointment is uncommon. The closest comparator is the wholly appointed Canadian Senate, whose measurement is restricted at 105 members. Notably, since 2015, all new appointees in Canada have been independents, really useful to the Prime Minister by an Impartial Advisory Committee for Senate Appointments. Permitting our Prime Minister doubtlessly to govern the membership of parliament to the present extent is antiquated and democratically extremely questionable.
9. By damaging the fame of the Lords, and its capability to do its job, this case damages politics as an entire
There are some variations of view relating to whether or not the scale of the Home of Lords issues for its functioning. Most (together with most members) clearly imagine that it does, although there are some dissenters. However what appears unquestionable is that the rising measurement of the chamber, and the Prime Minister’s unconstrained patronage energy, are vastly reputationally damaging. This has been proven in media evaluation, with rising numbers of headlines describing the chamber as ‘bloated’, and bemoaning peerage appointments. In debate on the Burns report in 2017, Baroness (Betty) Boothroyd urged that the chamber’s ‘inflated measurement fosters our laughing-stock picture’. That is clearly very damaging for public belief in parliament, and the Home of Lords – making it tougher for the chamber’s proposals to be taken significantly, and weakening parliament as an entire. It dangers fuelling declining general belief within the political system.
10. A Lords modification can be simple and would by no means jeopardise the remainder of the invoice
On the committee stage of the invoice within the Home of Lords, Lord Burns proposed an modification to implement this core advice from his committee. The same modification will probably be debated on the report stage. Friends should now select whether or not they need to help it, so as lastly to make progress on this concern that has so preoccupied them, and the broader public, for a few years. In a rational world, the federal government would embrace the change – Labour’s manifesto commented firmly that the Home of Lords ‘has turn into a lot too massive’. However in observe governments hardly ever welcome constraints on their patronage energy. If the modification handed in opposition to the federal government’s needs, ministers would wish to determine whether or not to ask MPs to overturn the place supported by the 95% of voters expressing a desire, in favour of that supported by the 5%. Critically, passing such an modification would by no means imperil the rest of the invoice. Governments are regularly defeated within the Home of Lords. If MPs subsequently reject the Lords’ place the talk usually ends there, permitting the invoice to cross.
A basic position of the Home of Lords is to encourage the federal government and Home of Commons to assume once more. It will be unusual if on this matter, that friends have thought of so fastidiously, and on which they’re so in keeping with the general public, they didn’t achieve this.
In regards to the creator
Meg Russell FBA is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCL and Director of the Structure Unit.
Featured picture credit score: Home of Lords chamber (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by ukhouseoflords.