Hove Report: BBC Analysis

A new report from the Hove Institute, a private think tank, sets out how the House of Lords could look under RPUK.

The study, called The House of Lords: Prospects for RPUK, goes through everything from how peers should be appointed to how much power the Lords should actually have over the Commons.

The report opens by pushing back against what it calls the “common view” that the Lords is “out of touch and disconnected from reality.” Instead, it says the chamber brings “talent, thoughtfulness and wisdom,” adding “realism, tradition, wisdom, insight and prowess” to Parliament.

It argues the Lords should stay as a reviewing body, not one that blocks laws. The Institute says its role is mainly “consultative,” meaning peers help improve and amend bills rather than stop them. It notes that “amendments are a key part of the Lords’ position in a bill’s life,” used to make laws clearer and more effective.

The authors defend keeping an appointed upper house, saying it gives Parliament expertise and “realism and insight” that elected MPs might lack. They also point out that life peers staying in place regardless of elections helps keep things stable and free from short-term party pressure.

A big chunk of the report looks at appointments. It’s critical of how things worked in BUK, where prime ministers could appoint who they liked through cronyism, often rewarding friends. The Institute says that damaged trust and made the Lords look too political. It supports a new statutory Lords Appointments Commission that would take control of who joins, rather than leaving it to the Prime Minister.

It’s also firmly against the idea of an “Appointments Auditor,” saying giving one person the power to block new peers would be “dangerous and undemocratic.” Instead, it backs a mixed commission with members from political parties and independents to make the process fair but not overly partisan.

Another big idea in the report is the return of temporary peerages. Party leaders would be able to appoint short-term Lords depending on how many seats they have in the Commons, three for the governing party, two for the opposition and one for the third-largest party. These peers would lose their seats when Parliament ends. The Institute says this would let parties be represented in the Lords but stop them from “packing” it with loyalists.

It also calls for a new Parliament Act 2025 to clearly set out what powers the Lords should have. It suggests cutting the time the Lords can delay a bill from one year to just three weeks, keeping the Commons in charge but still giving the Lords a voice. The report says major issues like Lords reform or changes to the monarchy should need approval from both Houses before they pass.

The Institute ends by saying the Lords is still valuable and shouldn’t be replaced, but it needs to work better.