Many new peers cannot do their job properly if they are turned into ermine-clad battery hens
Posh club declares itself closed to new members shock! In other circumstances, it would be right to ask why peers are backing a report that says the House of Lords is full. Are their Lordships struggling to find space in the tearoom or short of sunny spots to sip G&Ts on the terrace? But this report, from UCL's Constitution Unit and an all-party array of peers and MPs, makes a serious point. It is a pity that it was dismissed, instantly, by Downing Street yesterday morning. Caught in a sort of half-life before promised reform, the Lords was packed by the last government and is being packed again, only partly in the interests of political balance. In the last year 117 peers have been created, including 39 Labour ones, taking the House to a complement of 792 members. If its membership was proportional to the last general election result, as the government wants, 269 more peers would be needed and the Lords would have 1,061 members. This is absurd. Not only is it expensive – many new peers have been vigorous in their take-up of daily expenses – but they cannot do their job properly if they are turned into ermine-clad battery hens. The report also criticises the way peers are appointed: there is too much patronage and too many former MPs, eased into the upper house after an inglorious Commons career. The answer is not just a smaller chamber – the US Senate manages with 100 members – but also democratic reform. In the meantime, "house full" signs should be hung on the door.