Labour is looking to strike a deal in the House of Lords on cutting the size of the chamber in an effort to avoid further legislation, the Guardian has learned.
The plan is under consideration as the next step in Labour’s programme of constitutional change, as Conservative peers are preparing to cause delays and disruption to new laws abolishing the 92 remaining hereditary lords.
Keir Starmer’s five-line bill to get rid of hereditary peers is likely to enter the statute book later this spring, but Conservatives peers are expected to try to hold it up with amendments and parliamentary tricks, with a knock-on effect on other legislation.
Labour’s manifesto included a pledge to bring in a mandatory age limit, with members required to retire from the Lords at the end of the parliament in which they reached 80, and participation requirements meaning they need to demonstrate they are playing a working role in the House of Lords.
The manifesto also promised to strengthen the circumstances in which “disgraced” members could be removed, reform the appointments process to ensure the “quality of new appointments” and improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber.
But government sources suggested they were open to ways to bring down the number of peers beyond a hard age limit of 80, if an agreement across the chamber could avoid a legislative quagmire that would cause delays to other crucial bills being passed.
Some peers have suggested that an age limit of 80 or older could be brought in on a phased, longer-term basis. House of Lords research has found there would be just 414 peers left, out of 700 life peers, excluding bishops and hereditaries, if the 80 age limit was brought in by 2029. The change would also mean Labour losing more peers than the other parties.
Preliminary conversations have now taken place between peers about whether it might be possible to find a landing zone on cutting the number of peers from 800, with agreement across the parties, independents and crossbenchers.
Peter Hain, a Labour peer, said: “I think the size of the Lords is absolutely ridiculous, that it is over 800 and keeps rising. That is frankly farcical and it has to come down. The lords did support a reduction after a report by the crossbench peer Lord Terence Burns.
“I think most Labour peers are open to the idea, but doing it in a pragmatic fashion, not just suddenly having the guillotine come down. If there was a way of doing it that was more pragmatic but still keeping the principle and implementing it maybe in a phased way, then that would win support.”
The lords have previously approved a report by Burns, a crossbench peer and former Treasury official, who led a committee in 2017 that said the size of the chamber should be reduced in size by a quarter to no more than 600 members, with new peers limited to 15-year terms.
The committee also said at the time that the reduction in numbers would involve a “two out, one in” policy for all parties. It projected that the numbers would eventually fall to 600, smaller than the House of Commons, within a decade. Numbers would then stabilise at 574, making 600 when bishops were included.
The report also recommended a maximum term in the Lords of 15 years for any newly appointed members. It suggested party representation would be managed to make sure no one group had a majority, with at least 20% of peers being non-partisan crossbenchers.
A previous attempt by David Cameron and Nick Clegg to reduce the size of the Lords and bring in an elected chamber failed in 2012, amid a rebellion on the Conservative benches that threatened to frustrate other legislation.
