The Lords’ work: what is Tortoise’s Peer Review?

A quarter of the members of the UK’s House of Lords do two-thirds of the work, and 24 do nothing, Tortoise has found.

So what? That is not how parliaments are meant to operate. Under the new Labour government, the House of Lords is heading for reform. But a comprehensive new analysis of how the upper chamber works shows that Labour’s plans to scrap hereditary peers only scratch the surface of potential changes that could be made to improve the parliamentary system.

Last week MPs backed a bill that would abolish the 92 seats reserved for hereditary peers, who inherit their titles through their families. But this has opened a debate on whether the 26 seats allocated for bishops should also be reviewed – and a participation threshold introduced.

If it is, Tortoise analysis suggests the vast majority of the work of the House is done by roughly 210 of its 830 members:

• 71 per cent of all amendments are made by 26 per cent of peers;
• 63 per cent of all spoken contributions are made by the same group of people; and
• the same is true of 61 per cent of all written questions.

Grey zone. The distinction between busy and less busy peers isn’t black and white. There are 149 specialists who generally speak only on their chosen topic, bringing expertise to debates – but also the potential for conflicts of interests.

Unlike MPs, peers are paid an allowance instead of a salary, are not elected, and have different reporting requirements on their outside benefits. While experience is seen as a virtue, it can create a fundamental tension between public duty and private interest.

Tortoise has found instances of

• peers regularly failing to declare their interests before taking part in debates in which those interests are relevant;
• peers only speaking in debates in which they have an interest; and
• peers taking leaves of absence – intended for them to deal with health problems or fulfil other public duties – to carry out private work, particularly for foreign entities.

Lords not leaving. Some peers have opted out of legislation but retain their titles and access the Westminster estate, along with guests if they choose. As Labour makes plans to axe their hereditary colleagues, those who do no work while enjoying the perks of membership are coming under renewed scrutiny.

Time for a peer review. The House of Lords receives less scrutiny than the House of Commons, partly because of members’ semi-private status as unelected, part-time legislators. But many peers recognise the chamber is not working as intended.

It is the world’s second-largest parliamentary chamber after China’s National People’s Congress, and the only one apart from Iran’s to include clerics as of right. Conservatives as well as Labour have advocated shrinking it: Norman Fowler, a former Lords speaker and minister under Margaret Thatcher, has argued for its membership to be cut to 600.

There are dedicated public servants in the Lords, and there is world-class expertise. But as a body it is bloated and expensive and its rules are shot through with loopholes.

That is why Tortoise has created the Peer Review, to give everyone the ability to assess how – and who within – the upper chamber really works.

Alongside a series of articles released over the coming days, we are publishing a new interactive tool enabling members of the public to better understand the oldest, biggest and by most yardsticks least accountable pillar of the British democratic system.