PLANS to reduce the time new peers could serve in the House of Lords have been described as “sticking plaster” moves that will take years to have any substantial effect.

Under the leaked proposals from a committee set up in December to examine ways of reducing the size of the unelected upper house – which has almost 800 members – new peers could be restricted to serving for 15 years.

The committee, chaired by crossbencher Lord Burns, is reportedly recommending the 15-year term for new peers.

Its report could also call on the four biggest groupings in the House – Tories, with 252 peers, Labour, with 199, 180 crossbenchers and 100 Liberal Democrats – to accept cuts in the size of their blocs.

The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) welcomed the proposals, but chief executive Darren Hughes said: “At around 800 members, Britain’s bloated second chamber is crying out for change, so these proposals are a start.

“Years of pressure and public outrage have finally forced the Lords into cleaning out their stables.

“However, these reforms avoid dealing with the real problem in the Lords – a total lack of democracy and transparency in how it is composed.

“These hyper-cautious proposals are sticking plaster politics, and would do nothing to stop prime ministers packing the chamber with party donors and political friends.

“The light-touch reforms only apply to new peerages, meaning any substantial reduction in size could take decades.

“Nor would the changes go any way towards addressing the crisis of representation.

“More than half of peers are aged over 70, nearly half live in London and the south east, and – contrary to claims of independence – almost all vote solely along party lines.

“There is a danger with peers marking their own homework. The committee’s remit explicitly excluded discussion of how the chamber is composed – despite electing a much smaller Lords being the most logical way of effectively reducing its size.

“So while it’s good they recognise a problem, they have somewhat missed the point.”

Hughes added: “The public are not just fed up with the Lords because it is too big – they are fed up with repeated expenses scandals, allegations of cronyism and the ludicrous continuation of hereditary peers.

“And they are sick of the Mother of All Parliaments being viewed as a members’ club for a small elite.

“There is an urgent need for democratic accountability. Last month, we revealed that peers who haven’t spoken in the Lords for an entire year have claimed nearly £1.3 million in expenses and allowances. That only happens because peers know there is no redress – there is no way for voters to hold them to account. So often we see words but no action on Lords reform. So these reforms must be implemented, but as the first step towards the effective, accountable revising chamber the UK deserves.”

A spokesman for the Lords author-ities declined to comment on a report which is yet to be published.

The House of Lords is the second largest legislative body in the world, after the Chinese People’s Congress.

Peers voted unanimously last December to reduce their own numbers.

Announcing the creation of the Burns committee, the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, said the reform would not be “an easy task”, but added: “Hopefully if this issue can be settled, the public will be better able to recognise the true value of this House.”

The ERS is set to publish new research on inactive peers and their expenses next week. It shows that more than £4m has been claimed by the 36 per cent of peers who spoke five times or fewer in the past year, many of whom simply turned up to vote.

Peers who voted 10 times or fewer claimed more than £1m in 2016/17; 167 peers made 10 or less spoken contributions – yet claimed more than the average take-home salary.