Hundreds of peers could be forced to retire under Labour plans to introduce an age cap in a bid to bring down the size of the House of Lords.
Currently, there are 784 sitting members in the Lords, making it the largest upper house of any parliament worldwide.
Reforms brought in under Tony Blair slashed the size of the House from over 1,300 to just 690 by removing the vast majority of hereditary peers, but since then the numbers have begun to creep up.
To counteract this rise, and set the stage for more far-reaching reforms in the future, i understands that Labour will spell out plans in its manifesto to bring in a new cap for peers which that would require them to retire at 80.
It is expected that the cut-off would apply from when the next general election is called, meaning peers who are currently 80 or above would not have to stand down until the next poll was held – likely in 2028 or 2029.
Labour is also said to be proposing banning by-elections for hereditary peers – those whose right to sit in the Lords is based on their ancestry.
Under current rules, when one of the 92 remaining hereditary peers dies or retires, a replacement can be elected to fill their seat from a pool of 800 dukes, earls, viscounts and barons.
Labour had initially planned to go further, with former prime minister Gordon Brown leading a review in 2022 that recommended replacing the Lords with an elected Assembly of the Nations and Regions.
However, the party has since backtracked on its pledge to pursue these changes in its first parliamentary term, instead opting for a phased approach which will reportedly begin with an age cap.
This watered-down alternative, however, could have a major effect on both the composition and size of the upper house. Analysis by i suggests that if the next election were held in the spring of 2029, at least 346 peers could be required to step down.
Labour would be disproportionately affected under these proposals, losing just under 100 sitting members, while the Conservatives would lose just under 90 – assuming none retire or die.
While reducing the size of the Lords is considered politically popular, the plans have raised concerns among critics that Labour could use it as an opportunity to appoint more peers in a bid to rebalance the upper house.
Currently, Labour has 172, significantly less than the Conservatives on 275, which could create a headache for Sir Keir Starmer’s party when, if elected to power, they try to pass difficult legislation.
Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), said the fact that Labour could need to appoint dozens of new peers to pass laws “underscores the absurdity” of the system.
“It would send a terrible signal to the public if the creation of any additional peers was not as a prelude to serious democratic reform of the upper chamber,” he told i.
Mr Hughes added that scandals in recent years surrounding peerages and patronage “have not helped with public trust in politics, which is now at a record low.
“However, we do have concerns about a potentially arbitrary age cap at 80 for peers, as some are still very active and making valuable contributions over that age.
“Also, for peers starting their career in their late 20s and early 30s, as we now have, that is still effectively a guaranteed 50 years of unelected legislating, which is an absurd situation for a modern democracy.
Other critics have warned that an age cap is a “blunt tool” for reducing the size of the Lords that does not address many of the problems facing the upper house.
Professor Meg Russell, director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, said the proposals would mean “getting rid of the wrong people”.
She added: “If you were to ask people for the names of members of the House of Lords they admire, I can almost guarantee you that most of the people who are respected would be over 80 and most of those who aren’t are younger.”
Several figures pointed out that Labour peer Lord Dubs, who fled the Nazis on the Kindertransport when he was a child and is a prominent campaigner for refugee rights, would be required to retire under the rules as he is currently 91.
But controversial appointments such as Michelle Mone, 52, who attracted scrutiny last year over her role in a scandal surrounding pandemic PPE procurement, would be allowed to stay on for another 28 years.
Professor Russell told i that a Labour government’s first step on Lords reform should be overhauling the appointments process that allows prime ministers to select peerages.
She argued that the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac), which advises the premier on candidates for honours, should be given greater powers to vet and reject those presented to it.
“Let’s deal with that problem, which is the problem about the quality of appointments, rather than focusing on the thing that isn’t a problem, which is sort of elder statespeople people getting on with stuff in the House of Lords,” she said.
“I do hope Labour will have some words on improving cleaning up something or other the appointment process because I think that’s really urgent.”
Her concerns were echoed by Mr Hughes, who criticised the “unchecked and undemocratic system for creating new peers” which allowed prime ministers to “stuff the Lords with more friends and donors on a whim.
“The best way to clean up our politics and rebuild public trust is by replacing the unelected Lords with a smaller elected chamber with a set number of members, where the people of this country – not prime ministers – decide who shapes the laws we all live under.”
Professor Russell urged Labour to “think it through”.
Earlier this year, Labour peer Lord Mandelson warned that the party’s plans for the Lords were not ready, claiming they had “barely been put in the oven yet, let alone fully baked”.
In an interview with the Lord Speaker, Lord McFall, he said there needed to be a “far deeper conversation and analysis about this than has taken place to date.
“We haven’t had a substantive discussion about it in our own party, let alone a debate in the country. And yet we’re told six months away from a general election, all this is going to happen, abracadabra, in the first term of a Labour government.”
Maurice Saatchi: I used to adore capitalism – then I had lunch with Margaret Thatcher