Peers face new attendance rules under proposed House of Lords changes

Members of the House of Lords who fail to attend a minimum number of sittings would lose their right to vote and ultimately their seats, under proposals that represent the most significant attempt to reform the upper chamber's membership in a generation.

The proposals, set out in a consultation paper published by the government, would require peers to attend at least 25 percent of sitting days each year to retain their voting rights. Peers who fell below that threshold for two consecutive years would face proceedings to remove them from the House entirely. The rules would apply equally to life peers and the remaining hereditary peers.

The reform is driven by the persistent problem of the Lords' size. The upper chamber currently has approximately 800 members, making it one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, and the second-largest after China's National People's Congress. Many peers attend rarely or not at all, but under current rules there is no mechanism to remove them except for criminal conduct.

The proposals have received a cautious welcome from reformers who have long argued that the Lords' size undermines its credibility. But they have also drawn criticism from some peers who argue that attendance is a poor measure of contribution and that many peers who attend infrequently provide valuable expertise when they do participate.

The government has said it will legislate if voluntary measures do not reduce the size of the House sufficiently. The consultation paper suggests a target of reducing the Lords to approximately 600 members, a cut of roughly 25 percent from current levels. The proposals do not address the more fundamental question of whether the Lords should become an elected chamber, a reform that has been promised and abandoned by successive governments.