Big beast of British politics: Roy Hattersley (pictured) has announced he is to quit the Lords, launching a scathing attack on the Upper Chamber

The reputation of the House of Lords has taken a rather severe battering in recent months.

Hit by the embarrassing scandal over cocaine-snorting, bra-wearing, prostitute-using crossbencher Lord Sewel, the second chamber has also been damaged by rows over its composition, work rate and allowances for members.

Earlier this month, the independent pressure group the Electoral Reform Society published a damning report which showed that in the last Parliament, a total of £360,000 was claimed in allowances by peers who did not vote.

Now, that big beast of British politics Roy Hattersley has announced he is to quit the Lords, launching a scathing attack on the Upper Chamber.

The Labour peer and former party deputy leader described it as a ‘vastly inferior institution’ which goes against the idea of equality.

‘How can it be equal if the Lords are chosen by the prime minister?’ he said. ‘In principle, it’s wrong, but we can’t get rid of it because there would be uproar.’

He’s talking about the widely reported suggestion that, in an attempt to strengthen the position of the Conservative party in the Upper House, the Prime Minister is poised to recommend the appointment of another 50 peers, around 40 of whom will be Tories.

Such a move, expected today, will do nothing to rebuild the status of the House. By packing it in such a partisan manner, David Cameron will only further diminish its standing.

With a current membership of 783, the Lords is the second biggest political assembly in the world, only exceeded in size by the National People’s Congress of China.

Bra entrepreneur: Some have criticised the calibre of some of the possible Tory recruits, such as the Scottish founder of the Ultimo lingerie range, Michelle Mone (pictured)

It will struggle to cope with a sudden, large influx of new peers, especially given that the chamber only has a capacity of 400 and its facilities are already grossly over-crowded.

Apart from the unhealthy scale of this potential creation of peers in the Dissolution Honours, some have rightly complained about the costs at a time of continuing supposed austerity in public life.

Indeed, in its recent report, the Electoral Reform Society said that the total bill for these 50 new members could reach around £1.3 million.

Others have criticised the calibre of some of the possible Tory recruits, such as the Scottish founder of the Ultimo lingerie range, Michelle Mone. There is also a whiff of political correctness about the slew of appointments, with Cameron reportedly insisting at least half must be women.

I am all in favour of the advancement of women in public life, but it should be purely on the basis of merit rather than an arbitrary quota.

But my biggest concern is the reawakening of public fears about a link between party donations and the award of peerages. Elevation to the House of Lords should be a recognition of distinguished public service.

Like other honours, it should be given only to those who have enhanced the prestige or prosperity of the nation in the fields of commerce, the arts, science, politics or sport.

What a peerage should definitely not be is a reward for putting cash into party coffers.

Equality: There is a whiff of political correctness about the slew of appointments, with David Cameron (seen on holiday in Cornwall last Sunday with his wife Samantha) reportedly insisting at least half must be women

With its whiff of abuse, such a connection is guaranteed to undermine the image of the House. That is precisely what happened with the two big honours scandals of the last century, the first under Lloyd George after World War I, the second during Tony Blair’s administration, though in neither case did the police mount prosecutions.

Nevertheless, public concern about cash-for-honours has lingered, reinforced by evidence such as the study carried out this year by three Oxford academics, who examined the 303 nominations for the peerage that were put forward between 2005 and 2015.

They found that (discounting those elevated for their political service, such as former MPs, council leaders or senior party workers) party donors featured prominently.

How can it be equal if the Lords are chosen by the prime minister? In principle, it’s wrong, but we can’t get rid of it because there would be uproar Roy Hattersley

As they wrote in their report: ‘Clearly, those nominated outside “the usual suspects” are far more likely to be big donors.’

In fact, the sums donated to parties by this group amounted to almost £34 million. Several senior politicians have admitted to this link.

At a meeting last year, the Tory peer and former MP Lord Cormack was reported to have said that ‘the biggest abuse is putting party donors into the House of Lords’.

Meanwhile, former Liberal leader Lord (David) Steel confessed that, in the power of patronage, ‘not surprisingly, each party leader finds that those doing nothing for the party except writing large cheques somehow manage to catch their eye’.

We should not give the public grounds for suspicion and anxiety. That is why, when I gave £5 million to the Tory party in 2001, I told the then party leader, William Hague, that if I were offered a peerage, I would reject it.

Most party donors are, of course, honourable people who are in a position to make financial gifts precisely because they have been talented, hard-working and resourceful in enterprise. But after so many scandals, politics must be seen to be clean.

Concern: Elevation to the House of Lords (file picture) should be a recognition of distinguished public service

Unfortunately, the connection between donations and peerages only muddies the water.

I don’t think state funding of parties is a viable alternative because it will provide even more scope for corruption. Instead, I believe there is a two-fold solution.

First, all donors should make a full declaration of financial interests when giving money.

Clearly, those nominated outside 'the usual suspects' are far more likely to be big donors Study by three Oxford academics

Second, the Nominations Committee should refuse to allow peerages for party donors except in the most exceptional circumstances where the case for elevation is unanswerable.

In the current row over the impending Lords’ expansion, I can see what David Cameron is trying to do. Having won the General Election, he is faced with a politically unbalanced Upper House that has an inbuilt anti-Tory majority.

There are just 228 Conservative peers, compared to 214 Labour ones and 101 Lib Dems: the latter have been doing their best in recent months to stymie various Tory measures when they reach the Lords.

In practice, just one third of the Upper House’s membership is Conservative, with the result that the Government could struggle to get its measures through Parliament, particularly on controversial issues such as human rights and immigration reform.

Houses of Parliament: The worst of the undemocratic excesses of the Lords have already been removed through the abolition of the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit at Westminster

But the answer is not to pack the Lords with supporters. In justifying the creation of more Tory peers, Cameron has said that the composition of the Lords should reflect the popular share of votes at recent General Elections.

STUART WHEELER: What we need is not radical upheaval but a solid, sensible reform to limit the influence of party donors

But if that is true, then why has my own party, Ukip — which I joined after parting company with the Tories several years ago — not been given a fair crack of the whip?

In terms of popular support, we should have been given 23 peerages after the 2010 General Election and 80 after the contest in May, yet, disgracefully, we still have just three members in the Upper House.

On a deeper level, there are real dangers in tinkering with the House of Lords.

Having evolved over centuries, the institution may be anachronistic. Yet, in its own curiously British fashion, it still works. Indeed, it often does a better job of scrutinising legislation than the Commons.

Noisy attempts at reform could turn out to be counter-productive. If the aim is to reduce the size of the Lords, then that could simply be done by appointing fewer peers each year than the average annual number of deaths of Upper House members.

Similarly, an insistence on an elected second chamber would not only replicate the Commons, but would lead to a permanent battle for supremacy between the two Houses, thereby paralysing the governance of Britain.

The worst of the undemocratic excesses of the Lords have already been removed through the abolition of the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit at Westminster.

What we need is not radical upheaval but a solid, sensible reform to limit the influence of party donors.