Skip to site navigation

Press Release: Lords appointments urgently need regulation: Constitution Unit

1 August 2013

Today's appointments to the House of Lords - with 30 new peers announced - again demonstrates the urgent need for regulation of prime ministerial patronage powers, says Constitution Unit Deputy Director and Lords expert Meg Russell.

The appointments (14 Conservative, 10 Liberal Democrat, 5 Labour and 1 Green) take the eligible membership of the Lords to 785, but with 53 peers temporarily disqualified or on leave of absence, the potential membership of the chamber has reached 838. This is a new post-1999 high, and 172 members larger than 13 years ago - as shown in the chart below.

Lords membership 2000 - August 2013 (all other figures are for January)

hoflappointments


Commenting on today's appointments, Meg Russell said: 'Until some formal regulation of appointments to the House of Lords is introduced, the size of the chamber will grow and grow. Each Prime Minister seeks to boost their own side, and counteract appointments by their predecessors. But as appointments are for life, this means people arriving in the chamber in far greater numbers than they depart it'.

Options for regulation (as set out by Dr Russell recently in evidence to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and in a high profile report published in 2011 following Cameron's early appointments) include:

· Introducing an absolute size cap for the House of Lords;

· Requiring Prime Minister to appoint on a 'one in, one out' basis (or a 'one in, two out' basis if the chamber is to ever reduce in size);

· Agreeing a written formula for party balance among appointments (probably based on general election vote shares);

· Giving new power to the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission to police the system.

Meg Russell commented 'Something must be done, as the current system of appointments is unsustainable. It also gives huge patronage power to the Prime Minister. It is urgent to agree a maximum size for the chamber, and the appropriate formula for sharing out appointments, and to have an independent body to police this. Until then, the Lords will continually rise in both size and cost'.

Notes for editors

Join the Debate

Blog

The Government’s Freedom of Information commission tilts the political discussion towards damage and cost

Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:00:26 +0000

On Friday of last week, the Government announced a new commission on Freedom of Information. Here, Ben Worthy offers his response to the announcement, arguing that the objections to the scope and usage of FOI that have been raised are nothing new, and furthermore aren’t unique to the UK. Further, he argues that the commission’s remit tilts […]

Read more...

Changing the Commons: How many MPs? How equal their electorates? Part 2

Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:00:39 +0000

Yesterday, in part one of this blog, Ron Johnston, David Rossiter and Charles Pattie outlined the challenges that are likely to make the 2016 boundary review as (if not more) disruptive than the aborted 2012 review. Here the authors consider how issues around the accuracy and completeness of the electoral rolls will impact the review […]

Read more...

Changing the Commons: How many MPs? How equal their electorates? Part 1

Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:00:53 +0000

How much disruption do we want to the UK’s electoral map? We want constituencies to be equal in size – but how equal? And do we want fewer MPs? An article in The Independent on 11 July 2015 suggested that some Conservative MPs are already concerned about the impact on their constituencies if the number […]

Read more...
Mailing List

Connect with us

RSSFlickr

Footer menu