Lords Chamber

Wednesday 16th September 2026

(began 16 hours, 2 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:07
15:07
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Prisoners released on licence serving indeterminate sentences for public protection Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-

sentence once and for all by the end of this Parliament. In the
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing the £110 billion annual interest bill for servicing Government debt Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-

My Lords, this question about the government's interest Bill is a
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
None Portrait Chair of Committees. Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Non-affiliated)
-

strengthening of guidance to reinforce the long standing conventions on attendance in the chamber during debates and chamber during debates and referring to other noble Lords. We also recommend an update to the guidance around the reading of guidance around the reading of speeches, and propose a new paragraph on the dress code in order to help the House make best order to help the House make best use of the time allowed for oral questions, the committee proposes that the first supplementary question on each oral question should not exceed 45 seconds, and subsequent supplementaries should not exceed 30s.

Finally, we remind the House of the guidance already set out on interventions and talking in the chamber. The committee also considered the rules on speaking times at amending stages of bills to encourage the efficient use of time. The committee proposes that the advisory speaking time for backbenchers at Report stage and subsequent amending stages should be reduced from 10 to 8 minutes. This reflects well established practice that debates should become increasingly focussed and avoid repeating previous arguments at length as the bill progresses through its amending stages.

We also propose strengthening the guidance on withdrawing or pressing amendments to emphasise that the mover of an amendment should not should not make an extended speech at the end of a debate on a group of amendments, we further recommend strengthening the guidance in the companion on debate at the Bill do now pass stage to emphasise that members should not thank lists of named people who have supported them in their work on the bill. Well intentioned though, this is.

These changes, if agreed, will come into effect following the conference recess. Finally, my Lords, the committee has authorised the production of a new edition of the Standing Orders. As part of this new edition, we propose four broadly technical amendments. Firstly, that Standing Order 2021 brackets four be deleted to remove the reference to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, as they are no longer members of your Lordships House. Secondly, that Standing Order 56 be amended to make clear that a quorum of 30 applies to any question relating to subordinate legislation.

Thirdly, that Standing Order 83 be repealed because its provisions are now obsolete. And fourthly, references to virtual contributions be changed to remote contributions for consistency across the across the document. My Lords, I beg to move, Lord.
15:50
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Portrait Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-
-
The question is that the. >> First of all welcome. >> The report. >> In general? And can I say a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In general? And can I say a personal word of thanks to the A Leave of Absence subcommittee, who Leave of Absence subcommittee, who have dealt sympathetically with those of us who have got either chronic or incurable diseases. It is very encouraging in relation to that, but I wanted to mention the other aspects of the report, particularly members speaking, reading speeches and the question of the length of questions and ministerial answers. Now, that has been part of our procedure, supposedly for some time now, and in spite of the fact that the government Chief Whip gets up regularly and asks for questions and answers to be shorter, most members pay no attention whatsoever to it.

And I do everything our government chief Whip tells me. So I don't know why everyone else doesn't do what the government Chief whip tells them. However, it may be that it isn't the most, he isn't the most, or she, as it was before, is not the most appropriate person to do this. And I am wondering if the Committee Procedures and Privileges Committee might consider once more the role of the Lords speaker. Now I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heard. I heard some here. Here I also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I heard some here. Here I also heard some mutterings, mostly from the other side, which I'm used to, of course, and. However, if we think about it, if we are to improve our procedures, if we are to get shorter questions and shorter answers, we do need some discipline. And the best person, I discipline. And the best person, I would argue, to make sure that we do get that kind of discipline in the House. Is the person sitting in the chair now? I know some people opposite, and even 1 or 2 people on our side say we don't want to adopt the procedures of the other place, but with respect, it isn't just the procedures of the other place, it's the procedures of any meeting, whether it be a trade union meeting or a political meeting or a church guild or whatever that the person in the chair says you've had long enough, bring them up.

Bring your enough, bring them up. Bring your remarks to a conclusion. And I can take the hint.
15:53
15:54
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
None Portrait Senior Deputy Speaker Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Non-affiliated)
-

My Lords. all the questions which have been asked. So first, my noble the noble asked. So first, my noble the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. He seems to be advocating a power grab by the Lord speaker and the deputy speakers. And I have to say, we are a self-governing house. I've been in this House a very long time, longer than most noble Lords, and I've twice seen it where noble Lords have. Has intervened on fellow peers, and ask and the.

And and put the motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard. So there are procedures for doing that. But the the the bottom line is it's a self-governing house, and any change from that is would be a radical change and a matter for the usual usual channels. The noble Lord Lord Bellingham talked about business attire, and I agree with the general points he made on that. He asked. He mentioned. Whether the Lord speaker, the Lord Chamberlain, is a.

Is a life peer, and is not the Lord great Chamberlain who is a life peer. I hope that clears up that matter. I'd make the point that no women wear ties in this chamber, and I'd also make another point that while I was a magistrate, I did go through this exact issue about whether men should wear ties, whether magistrates should wear ties when they sit in magistrates court. And in that context, the rule of the court is that court participants should uphold the dignity of the court.

There's no explicit reference to wearing a tie, but I think that guidance is is appropriate for this chamber as well. And it's for each individual member to to dress appropriately. And there are a few noble Lords, male noble Lords who don't who choose not to wear a tie. And that's a matter for them. My Lords, my my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Davis also mentioned the dress code, and I can see that he is excelling himself because he's wearing his aubergine suit at the moment, which is, which is unique within this chamber.

And I'm glad he's, he's, he's raising the standards of, of male dress within within the chamber. The note the other noble Lords and Lord speaker, Lord Harris Lord Dubs basically put forward ideas which were, were, were were more radical, if you like than than is is proposed in the report. What what we've tried to do in the report is emphasise the the existing tenor of the, of, of the, the, the guidance of how to behave in the, in the in the chamber.

There has been a proposed reduction in the speaking time at Report stage and later stages of the bill. Just to answer the noble Lady, Lady Goldie, accurately, the clock will flash at eight minutes at the later stages, but there will be no change to the way the clock will behave in oral questions. So that will be for the the the chief whip or the party whips to intervene. If they feel that somebody is going over the that somebody is going over the allotted time.

My Lords, I think I think I've covered all the points really, so I. I beg to move.
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:07
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Portrait Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour)
-
-
discuss this immediately after. We've heard several comments about us being a self-governing house, us being a self-governing house, because it does enter. It does enter into this as well. Can I enter into this as well. Can I start however? Can I start, however, start however? Can I start, however, by thanking those members of the committee who gave up so much time to put in a great deal of effort to try to get a consensus on this matter? And can I also thank the staff that we had, who worked very diligently Judith Brooke, Rachel Burrell and Ellie Haslam, because there was an awful lot of work involved in the production of this report.

And I must thank the Leader of the House for organising an early debate, because I think it is important that we can get the feeling of the House as a whole. Perhaps I should start by reminding the House of the starting point for the discussion that we're about to have in the last Labour Party manifesto, the government manifesto. There was a commitment to introduce retirement and participation requirements for the House of Lords for all peers to retire at the age of 80 at the time of the next election.

Whenever that election came along, it was a very significant commitment and one that was paired with other aspects of reform to this House, some of which have taken place when we were established. Many people immediately got in touch with the committee about some of the wider issues of House of Lords reform. But I have to emphasise that the committee's remit was very tight and very specific, and quite rightly so. We were charged with considering and making recommendations on retirement age and the participation requirement and the impact that any such requirements might have on the size, membership and functioning of the House, and we were given the opportunity to consider transition arrangements and indeed, what arrangements might be made for implementation.

When established. We decided very early on that we wanted to involve as many people as possible in the decision making process, and so we embarked on a very important consultation exercise where we had an invitation for written evidence to be submitted. We had drop in sessions, and we had many individual members colour different ones of us at different times in different corridors. We welcomed all of that, and I reckon that probably 25 to 30% of active members actually took part in that consultation process.

We did, of course, have a significant range of views, and I'll come on to some of those later. But all of the submissions that were made were carefully considered, I think, by every single member of that committee, and therefore it was quite a heavy workload on every single one. And in the end, we did manage to produce a unanimous report, and I would emphasise that to the House, because I think it's important to realise that people with very different starting points actually did come to a consensus in the end.

So what do I recommendations involved? First of all, let me talk about retirement, because I think that that is the one issue that concerned many members when they were thinking about our committee. And let me just say a few words by way of context, because the average age of members of this House is 71, the average age of members on appointment is 59. The average age of retirement in the last few years has been 82. And I think it's worth keeping that in mind when we think about the conclusions that we came to.

And we did model many options with the help of our assistance, we did look at a whole range of options that had been presented to us by many colleagues in their submissions. The first question that we had to ask was, at what point did we look at as an end date? And it was very difficult because we don't know when the next election would be. So what we took was the last sitting date of this House, in this parliament, the maximum sitting date.

And that is why the modelling that we did was based on July 2029. And so some people might be surprised at that. But there is an actual logic there. And there wasn't a logic for taking any other date of that kind. I think we've also got to remember that the figures that we produce are the maximum number of peers affected at any one time, because we are not saying that everybody has to stay until a certain time.

We are saying people can retire at whatever point they feel is appropriate, but there is a maximum cut off if the government's proposals that all peers over 80 were to retire at the next election, and if that election was on the last possible date of July 2029, then a maximum of 257 peers would be required to leave by that date or at that time. And as a committee, we agreed that such a number, such a cut off point, would be too severe and would have implications for the working of the House.

Unintended consequences have always got to be considered. So what we did was to take the age of 80, which is what the government has been proposing. We did have suggestions from other people. Some people were against retirement age altogether. Some people suggested 75. Some people suggested 85. We looked at all the evidence that we got, and we decided it was probably appropriate to look at the age that the government was proposing, and that's why our modelling was based on the age of 80.

So we considered all of those options. And and we recommended that by July 2029, all peers over the age of 85 who hadn't already retired should do so. And that subsequently, the maximum retirement age should reduce annually by one year. And of course, as I say, it is the maximum age of retirement. In appendix four of this report, we set out exactly how transition would work in detail. And there is a app available so that anybody who wants to know how they themselves are affected can actually be told.

And just for the sake of transparency, we did include in our report how this would affect each of the members of the committee, just to prove that there was no bias there, and we weren't actually looking after ourselves. And for anybody who's interested, mind is the 2nd of July 2031. So we thought this was fair. We thought it would be workable, and we thought it gave individuals a proper timescale for thinking about their futures. And that is where we have landed so far as retirement is concerned.

We did consider the alternative of term limits. There were submissions that we received that were in favour of fixed terms, and I do have a degree of sympathy with that. People talked about 15 year terms, 20 year terms. I think we probably all have come here and accepted positions on tenure terms, but there was a range of opinion and it would fixed terms would provide for the refreshment of the house. People would know where they were, there would be predictability.

But in the end, after discussing this quite, quite detail, we decided that the disadvantages and the problems would be too much. There would be a difficulty in transition, there would be significant cliff edges. There was a question of reappointment and the fact that if people had the possibility of reappointment, that might actually alter how they behaved in the House, depending on who was making the reappointment. And we also looked at the question of younger members who might find it difficult to re-enter their profession after 10 or 15 years here.

And so because we thought that we there were too many disadvantages, we rejected that thought on participation. Can I say, first of all, very clearly that we do not equate participation with attendance. They very often are different things for different people. We had various suggestions as to how we might measure participation. Some of these were very complex, very complicated, and many have the real problem that they could lead to performative activity. People speaking just for the sake of getting a tick in the box.

And in no way would that enhance the quality of our debates. So we are not suggesting a participation threshold. However, the committee did think that there is a problem with the attendance provision. The 200 and 201 four 2014 act does say that if you attend once during a session, then you continue to be a member of this House, and that is just not good for the reputation of this House. And people who are members should take this House seriously.

So whilst we acknowledge and whilst we appreciate the expertise from appropriate outside interests, we did think that membership of this House should be taken seriously and therefore the committee recommended an attendance threshold of 20%, but 20% over two sessions to allow people to adjust according to their own circumstances. And with the provision of the kind of short term leave of absence that my noble friend was talking about earlier. And I think that that would be And I think that that would be helpful to everyone.

We. Oh, yes. I should mention a couple of other things that we we did touch on, though we didn't go into great detail. We also made recommendation on leave of absence because of the fact that such members are not bound by the provision relating to the Register of interests in the Code of Conduct, despite the fact that they do have clear access to members of the House and indeed to Ministers, it was not directly for us to deal with, but we did want to highlight that, because a case that there was a problem here had been made to us, which was very impressive, and therefore we did want to highlight it so that the appropriate committee can look at this again.

And just one word about another point in our report. We did suggest that peers who retire, peers who leave the House should become peers emeritus, and that there should be an association for former peers to keep in touch and to be aware of what is going on, and have access to the libraries they do under the new arrangements. I have been struck by the fact that several people have already come to me and said, how do we arrange this and that they are willing to take it on? I'm very happy for them to take it on, but I do think that there is merit in following that through.

So, my Lords, I've actually been heartened by the response that I've had talking to people, talking to groups, talking to individuals. Some people have said, well, at least I now know how this will affect me. And others have said that they've made. It's made them think what they should be doing, how they should listen to their families, how they should talk about their future. And I think that that has been very useful. We do, in our report, mention implementation, and we were told that a retirement age could be implemented by legislation very easily and very quickly by one line amendment for the 2014 act.

As a committee, we decided that it would be preferable for the House to take control of this and to introduce such a provision through a resolution of the House, and I think that that is appropriate to be recommended. I do believe that change is coming, and I do believe that it is better done by us than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to us. I recommend the report to. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be agreed to. My Lords, I. I thought it might be helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought it might be helpful. To intervene at this point to set out the position of the official opposition, though I can assure the House that I will listen carefully and weigh every contribution, including from the many who may disagree with me. First and foremost, I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Taylor of Bolton for introducing this important debate in such a typically thoughtful fashion. And even if I don't agree, I thank her and all members of her committee for their careful work and balanced report.

And incidentally, I do agree with the recommendation on leave of absence and declaration of interests. I hope that will be taken forward. My Lords, I declare an interest like the noble Baroness. I will be expelled under these proposals. In my case, on the 8th of July, 2033. And let's be to get the language right. Mandatory retirement for sitting members means expulsion. And I confess that I find that prospect a painful. Like others here, no doubt. I ask, what have I actually done wrong? Appendix five of the report tells me that up to 367 peers could be expelled from the House over the next seven and three quarter years, in addition to expulsion on grounds of age 94, peers now sitting would have failed.

The proposed 20% threshold. Taken together, my Lords, that is a monster cowl on top of dozens of peers recently expelled by this government. Of course, I
16:24
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
concede, as the report says, that the figures may well be significantly lower. Some of us significantly lower. Some of us lined up for the sack may die. Some may retire voluntarily. And after all, it's a noble Baroness said. all, it's a noble Baroness said. The average retirement age is 82, 82, 80. At what problem are we trying to solve, my Lords, to inflict such a purge on the House? Unlike the select Committee, I'm not constrained by terms of reference, so I will address some wider questions.

And I do ask why are we here now? Some said it's to reduce our numbers. I've never really bought that argument. As noble Lords know, the largest division this year had 475 votes. Such numbers are not an adequate reason for a mass cull of near half the House, potentially. And what guarantee is there that prime ministerial patronage would not be used to fill the empty spaces with more compliant members than those forced out? And if not numbers, my Lords, is the reason.

Party balance. Now, there was an unacceptable and unequal balance between the two main parties in 2024, but that balance is now nearing equality, a difference of 14 and narrowing between Labour and Conservative doesn't justify a mass cull. And actually, the group that would suffer most from the report's proposals are the crossbenchers, who could lose half their number. We should be careful what we wish for. Yes. No, my Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the reason we are here is because the Labour manifesto bushwhacked the House with a draconian and frankly discriminatory and ageist proposal.

And now we are threatened that if hundreds of us do not go gently into that dark night, then the government will slam down a legislative guillotine. Really? Wherefore, my Lords, this mania to expel people from our house. Who is driving this? Sir Keir Starmer, who wrote the manifesto, is gone. Mr. Burnham has said that his inspirations were the noble Lords, Lord Kinnock and Blunkett, and noble Baroness Lady Beckett. All remarkable figures much valued here. But under these plans Lady Beckett and Lord Kinnock are booted out on the 8th of July 2029, and the noble Lord Lord Blunkett on the 6th of June 2031, the 6th of June it would be 6th of June.

It'd be nice if that day could be remembered for another day than the departure of the noble Lord Lord Blunkett. Is this really the new Prime Minister's wish, my Lords? Or is someone else driving all this? Can our leader explain, my Lords, two criteria are proposed for the cull age and participation. First, Labour want to expel hundreds of peers simply because they are older. Now there are many over 80 who make extraordinary contributions to public life here in this House and elsewhere.

Can you imagine? On the 21st of April 2006, someone rapping on the late Queen's door saying Happy birthday mum. You've had a good run, but today you've got to clear your desk. But you can come back for a cup of tea. How much wisdom. My Lords and leadership would this nation have lost? And isn't the same true among us here? Is it wise to attack all those who can and do perform their duty here, and not address the issue of capacity of those perhaps no longer so able to act age or capacity incapacity, which more risks our disrepute? Might cognitive tests be a better focus than the blunderbuss of an age bar? Can the noble Baroness, the noble Lord Privy Seal, say, if this alternative is being considered, my Lords and this age bar will purge from our Parliament the voice and outlook of a major cohort of the British people.

7% of our adult population are over 80. After these measures, the numbers from that cohort in our Parliament will be barely one tenth of 1%. Who then from the ranks of the elderly will speak in our Parliament for them? We should be cautious about silencing the voice of experience. My Lords, every noble Lord will judge this matter freely. But let me say a word. As Leader of the Opposition, my party will not support mass expulsion of sitting members who are well capable of doing their job and are doing it well.

We can discuss rules that may apply to new members, but we think it wrong to quash the rights of all sitting members over 80. If the government will seek to legislate, attempts may be made to amend a bill to ensure any age bar should apply for the future, not expel those valued colleagues now sitting here. This House has voted before for grandfather rights. The principle that workplace rights should not be taken from those who have them. It might well vote again for that very fair principle without overturning the idea of a future age limit.

And my party has a constitutional problem with the central mechanism of the report and the precedent it would set for the House of Lords to pass a resolution. To tell people to go would mean this House alone would seek to decide who its members should be. My Lords, it is not for the government to decide who sits in Parliament, and it is not for a single house. It is for Parliament. My noble friend, the Shadow Attorney General will address the legal points.

The report is correct at paragraph 84 that a resolution of this House cannot override the legal right under the 1958 act to a writ. Some take comfort in paragraph 85, which concedes peers may simply say no. I have heard much fruitier language, my Lords. When their birthday comes and they will go on attending by virtue of the writ. This is hardly satisfactory. Most would no doubt comply, but some would not. Invidious divisions would arise, and, my Lords, there are reasons, perhaps 72 million reasons, why.

This is also a bad political precedent. Let us suppose reform might form a government. Prime Minister, Prime Minister. Patronage would allow reform leader, even in a minority government, to do what he says he would pack this house. His new peers, too, might pass a resolution. They might say their party was elected to sweep away the establishment. And so any peer had been in the House for more than five years should leave forthwith. No doubt many of us might refuse, as paragraph 85 says, we could.

The mother and father of constitutional crises would erupt between the two houses. My Lords, I submit this House should be cautious about laying that precedent on the table and away from such a looming example. What is to stop a future house passing a similar resolution, excluding this category of peer or that? My Lords, these are murky waters. But the constitutional principle to us is clear this House alone should not assert the right to choose who here should stay and who should go without the assent of Parliament as a whole.

My Lords, on participation, I recognise many wish to see action. The Select Committee rightly rejected the measure of performative speaking, and it was sensitive to the truth inherent to a house of experts that some will only come when they have something worthwhile to say, and we'll be glad to hear them when they do. And as the report points out, there will be cases where unforeseen illness or other commitments may make it hard for peers to attend. We shouldn't build intrusive mechanisms probing sensitive personal circumstances, and there are other questions.

In a typical 150 day session on attendance, not always judged on attendance, but on attendance, it would cost £11,130. Appear just to the daily allowance, simply to establish the threshold right to remain. My Lords, is the 20% threshold too high? Does the exclusion criterion favour those who live near London? Who precisely are the peers who will be affected, and how many. The principle is wearable and, unlike retirement, legally enforceable. But it does bear further reflection on the details.

Building on the committee's excellent report. To conclude, my Lords, if we are to go forward, I submit the outcome must meet four clear tests. Will it improve the ability of this House to hold governments to account? Will it enrich the experience in this House? Will it enhance the independence of the House from recent or present governments? Will it enable the House and its committees to do their revising work better? In my judgement, these proposals, however ingenious and constructive, would fail those tests.

They gild the manifesto thornbush. But do not remove the thorns. And instead of plunging forward with haste, we should take time to think with honesty and humility across party lines about the far reaching implications of an age bar for this House, for its members, and for the voice of the elderly in the councils of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nation. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I strongly support this report and I congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Taylor of Bolton, not only for her introduction of the report, but her excellent chairing of our Select Committee, which it was a great privilege to sit on and like her. I would like to thank the
16:35
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
committee staff, whose professionalism and good humour aided us on that path. As Lord True said, the backdrop to this report and the debate today is the manifesto commitment of the government to introduce a requirement for participation and retirement. We are a self-governing house and this report is a workable and fair way for us to take charge of our own future. On proposing a retirement age of 80, we would allow members to make a significant and meaningful contribution to the work of this House over a good number of years.

But it recognises that all organisations benefit from the refreshment and new perspectives of new members. That is important. Equally, the way that the report sets out a tapered exit for existing members, a significant number of existing members. It will avoid a cliff edge and the problems that that would cause for the workings of the House and the good work that we know that we do. Secondly, on the issue of participation, I think there is no one in this House this afternoon who thinks that the conferral of a peerage is merely a gilded bauble.

It is a commitment to contribute. That is what our requirements in this report on participation seeks to do, but it balances against the very real fact that for many in this House, the very reason that we want to listen to their contributions is the expertise that they bring from their outside professions. That fact that they have those outside professions and those perspectives and experiences means they can't always be with us. And therefore, we have to be very careful, particularly in the case of the crossbenchers, in setting a participation requirement, which did not actually exclude the people that we most want to hear from on particular debates and issues, where they have expertise that the House needs to hear from.

But to my mind, is extremely important and valuable. We want people who can participate, but we also want people who can recognise that there is a time that their voices are the most important ones, that we need to be hearing. My Lords, this is an important report from the House. It was drawn up with cross-party membership and we came as the noble Lady Taylor said to you, a unanimous position of agreement. That is important.

It is workable and it is fair, and I support it. My fear is that if this House is not seen to be supporting these proposals, for whatever reason, it will be seen by those outside this House as self-interest. That will do nothing for the reputation of this House, which I know we all think of and worry about very deeply. If we do not accept these proposals, then those who know less and care less about this House will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shape our future. Pleasure to. Follow the noble Baroness Baroness Parminter, and I won't Baroness Parminter, and I won't repeat what she said, except to say how well chaired we were as a committee, and to give my congratulations to the noble congratulations to the noble Baroness, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, and my thanks also to Judith Brooke and my thanks also to Judith Brooke and her team, who supported us extremely well. I'd also like to
16:39
Baroness Hayman Portrait Baroness Hayman (Crossbench)
-
-
give my thanks to my fellow committee members, because we did have four members from the official have four members from the official opposition. They didn't all think the same way. We all came with different starting points and with different foci as to how to deal with this issue. I think certainly for myself and for many others, we would have liked broader terms of reference. We would have been interested in looking at, and I'll come to this later, how people get into this house, as well as how people leave it.

But we did our best. My Lords, and I do think that best. My Lords, and I do think that we have provided a a nuance to the proposals in the manifesto that is respectful of members of this House, and that does. As a noble Baroness, Lady Taylor said, give people the opportunity. And that's from. Whenever we decide on this issue till July 2029, to make their own plans for the future. I know the noble Lord Lord True talked in dramatic language of expulsion.

Most of us have worked in organisations at some point in our life where our contract came to an end, where there was actually provision for retirement. It didn't strike us that there was some terrible sword of Damocles over our ability to go on ad infinitum, to give our wisdom and to take up really precious space on the benches in this house. So I think the language is slightly hysterical because the concept of retirement, though it should be later in this House, I think, for good reason, and that it shouldn't be destructive of the knowledge base and the corporate memory that we have.

But the concept is really not quite as revolutionary as to say that we've been bushwhacked by the Labour manifesto. So I very much support the report that we brought together. And I also support the approach of trying to do this ourselves with the nuances that we have put in, with the transition period that we have put in. The noble Lord Lord True is very, very optimistic about a one clause bill on this, going through the House and the House of Commons like a dose of salts and making everything perfect.

In my long 30 year experience in this House and my short five years experience in the House of Commons, I very much doubt that it would be as simple as that. My Lords, but there are two things that I actually agree with the noble Lord Lord True. One is that we have to be very, very careful about numbers of the crossbenchers, and I think we have to preserve that view that 20% of the House should be crossbenchers. And look at how the interaction of that with the age that comes about.

And the other thing I think we have to look at, and I agree with him, is that the unconstrained prerogative of the Prime Minister to make as many appointments whenever he wants to, this House is a dangerous weapon and a wrong place for us to be. It leads to the ratcheting of numbers. After every election. We could do that better, and I believe we should try and find a way to do that better.
16:44
Lord Bishop of Hereford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Hereford (Bishops)
-
-
Yeah. committee for its report and for the serious and thoughtful way in which it has approached the difficult question of the future size and composition of this house. My right reverend friend, the Bishop of Manchester, the convenor of the Lords Spiritual, made a written submission to the committee on behalf of these benches, and he is unfortunately unable to be in his place today. The Lords Spiritual have long supported reforms that strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of this House, while safeguarding its distinctiveness from the other place in its expertise and culture.

We therefore welcome the opportunity to consider proposals that seek to create a smaller and more sustainable house. However, I know he would wish that I highlight several concerns, particularly in relation to the recommendation of the mandatory retirement age. The report itself acknowledges one of the principal concerns raised in evidence, namely the potential loss of experience, expertise and institutional memory of members who continue to make valuable contributions well beyond the age of 80. One notable example of the expertise on which the House relies is that of senior judges.

I am not persuaded by the committee's conclusion that because committees in the other place function without senior judges, committees in this House can, and therefore should do likewise. We should be cautious about assuming that arrangements appropriate to one House must automatically apply to the other. One of the principal strengths of the House of Lords is that it complements rather than mirrors, the House of Commons, drawing on forms of experience and expertise that enrich parliamentary scrutiny, such as independent chairmanship and experience in interpreting the law.

The contribution of senior judges to committee work exemplifies that distinction. Their role is not simply a matter of who occupies the chair. It reflects the independence, judgement and habits of scrutiny acquired through judicial office. The Ecclesiastical Committee, for example, benefits from the specialist expertise of judicial leadership, and their contribution helps to shape both the character and quality of its deliberations. Indeed, the Ecclesiastical Committee has benefited from senior judicial chairs since its formation in 1919. Our current chair, the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss, offers invaluable expertise regarding the interpretation of church law and the measures passed by General Synod, along with her understanding of church processes and structures.

These benches and the Committee are, I know, most grateful for her diligent contributions. Introducing a mandatory retirement age within the House may significantly reduce the number of members able to undertake such responsibilities. Their loss would therefore represent more than a procedural change. It would alter the nature of the scrutiny that such committees are able to provide more broadly. If a significant cohort of members were required to retire within a relatively short period, we risk creating clusters of departures and arrivals that could alter the balance of expertise.

Institutional memory could be lost more rapidly than it could be replenished. It is, of course, worth acknowledging that bishops do retire earlier than any other members of the House, perhaps explaining something of our youthful vigour. Members may have noticed that we have not benefited from a steady turnover of bishops in recent months, but rather my right reverend friends have retired in batches. Their loss of experience and wisdom is acutely felt on these benches. And I know across the house.

For these reasons, any reform must be introduced gradually and with great care. A phased approach is essential if continuity is to be maintained and the House's scrutiny functions safeguarded. Equally, I wonder whether greater attention might first be given to encouraging the retirement of members who rarely participate or attend before measures are introduced that remove highly active and valuable contributors solely on the grounds of age. This report also welcomes the consideration of how new members of this House are appointed. Do they directly replace the expertise of their retired counterparts? We must be careful in the interpretation of this report not to ring fence seats on this basis.

The House must remain agile to respond to developing policy areas. So while I welcome the support and the debate, it's initiated. I'm not yet convinced that we fully considered the implications for the functioning of the House, the operation of its committees, or the preservation of the expertise on which Parliament

**** Possible New Speaker ****

depends. My Lords, I'd like also to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like also to congratulate my noble friend Baroness Taylor for her skill, her Baroness Taylor for her skill, her good humour and her patience, not least with me and my thanks to least with me and my thanks to fellow committee members. I actually found myself agreeing with actually found myself agreeing with Lord Strathclyde, who follows me. I was quite astonished on those occasions and I've reflected on them since. Either he was wrong or I was right.

One of the two. When I joined the committee, I accepted the terms of reference and therefore the remit, and I speak to support to that today. The manifesto had two commitments in relation to the House of Lords. One was that there would be a rebalancing regionally of members of the Lords across the regions and nations. Well, that went for a Burton very quickly. The second was this ridiculous sentence, which was clearly discriminatory. I'll come to that in a minute. As my noble friend said in opening this debate.

The impact was to create a cliff edge of 257 members going all at once. It was actually a greater number when we started our deliberations. The person who wrote the manifesto pledge clearly didn't understand. We didn't have fixed term parliaments. Briefly, we did, but no longer. Perhaps the person reflecting on their social democratic commitments might have understood that discrimination doesn't just apply to gender or
16:50
Lord Blunkett Portrait Lord Blunkett (Labour)
-
-
sexual orientation, or ethnicity or sexual orientation, or ethnicity or disability. It does apply to age. And I believe that the manifesto And I believe that the manifesto commitment was a proxy for incapacity. And I say to Lord True, incapacity. And I say to Lord True, if you don't wish to adopt the proposals in this report, we do proposals in this report, we do need to take very seriously and find ways of dealing with that. Things have changed over the years.

Aficionados of PG Wodehouse will remember Lord Emsworth, the owner and dithering overseer of Blandings Castle. This benign, endearing, dithering old fool was only 60 in P.G. Wodehouse. Recollections. Now, as some of us, as Lord True has described, come towards the age of 80, we like to think that we've got our marbles together.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In fact, I'd like to think perhaps paraphrasing Saint perhaps paraphrasing Saint Augustine, I will retire, Lord, but not just yet. Because the advantage not just yet. Because the advantage of this report provides some of this report provides some certainty. It provides a respect for those who have given their lives and commitment in the House. lives and commitment in the House. It allows the House to function appropriately and properly, and it also avoids us getting in that clash with the House of Commons.

Now, those who remember Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, Scuppering previous massive proposals in relation to this House, or even the demise of the Clegg Bill just 15 years ago, will understand why we should try and avoid that at the plague. I don't pretend that I'm happy with where we are, or that we've had to make these proposals. I think that we should, however, retain some influence over our own future, our reputation a bulwark against ill thought through constitutional change, against those who haven't a clue what we do or the implications for our Constitution, or, by the way, for the operation of the House of Commons, because massive reform of this place requires a complete change in the way the House of Commons operates.

Reform and modernisation. I mean, yes, dislocating our Constitution. No. So this afternoon I think we should send a message to ourselves. Let us get our own act together. Let us make this house work better. Let's put aside the nonsense of discrimination. But let's understand that the House of Commons can deal a blow in time to come against us. It would inevitably mean the complete disruption of their own timetable and other priorities. But, you know, we've seen over recent years how even the stupidest suggestion can be adopted and pushed through by people who don't know better.
16:54
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I hugely enjoyed sitting on the committee with Lord sitting on the committee with Lord Blunkett. And in fact, as he pointed out, many of his views were a revelation to me and ones with a revelation to me and ones with which I wholeheartedly agree. My Lords, I'm going to speak up in favour of older members of this House remaining here, but I'd like to thank the. And congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for chairing the Committee in the way she did, and the excellent clerks that we had.

And some of you may be wondering how I can square what I've just said about older members of the House with support for this this committee report. We had many discussions and we consulted widely in the House. We came up with a scheme outlined in the report. It has its flaws, but it fulfils what was set out in our terms of reference. However, my Lords, and this is the point, at its heart lies a lacuna, and that lacuna we were unable to bridge.

Namely, what is the justification for this desire to expel so many members of the House? You can look at the Labour Party's manifesto. Much has been made of that, but it provides no explanation either. So I really hope that when the noble Baroness, Leader of the House winds up, she might just spend a couple of sentences in answering the question what problem was the Labour Party trying to solve in its manifesto? Was it the overall size of the house? Perhaps. Well, there are many different ways of dealing with the problem of the size of the house.

Is it that older members have lost cognitive ability to be able to continue in the House? And there must be other ways of dealing with that. So I ask again, what is the government's motivation? What is its objective? It would be very helpful to allow us to know, because otherwise there is this suspicion that some people have mentioned that the what the government wants to do is to remove older members of the House and replace them with new, younger supporters. And that doesn't help us at all on numbers, as the noble Baroness reminded us in paragraph 51, the average age of joining the house is 59.

The average age of retiring from the house is 82. So you wonder, to what extent is there a real problem if those who wish to leave already do so? At the age of roughly 22? My Lords, ever since I've been here, I've always been below the average age. And it may surprise. Unable to know that I still am. I've always held the elder members of the House in great admiration. I think of Lord Callaghan, former Prime Minister, who who died aged, I think about 99 in his 90s.

But in the 1980s he moved an amendment to a conservative bill which preserved the right of Great Ormond Street Hospital to still claim its royalties from J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan. He had the authority and the political clout and the will to get it done. Under these proposals, he would be turfed out and we would miss him. And I look over at the the other side, I see Lord Dubs, I see Lady Andrews so important I don't see, sadly, Lord Reid.

But he's an old friend of mine and I'm a great admirer of his. All of them would be turfed out. Now, of course, none of them need to stay. They can retire voluntarily, which I think is very much the way forward. We lose so much knowledge, experience and wisdom by expelling these peers and Constitution. I'm not sure it really stacks up if we've got to remove peers from this House, then surely we must reform the way new entrants to come into this House.

Otherwise, it's just a free for all, for the government. Whatever that government is. My Lords, the committee's report has produced some very useful statistics and commentary on the work of the House, which is extremely useful in revealing. There are some good suggestions that lie with. Within it. But having done the work, I suggest respectfully to the noble Baroness and to the government that they should perhaps think again about what is proposed. We do have a new Prime Minister with his own agenda.

We've plenty of work to be getting on with over the next few years. My advice to the government is park this in the slow lane. There is nothing to be gained from pressing on with it.
16:59
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, it is a pleasure to >> My Lord, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Strathclyde, and I thank the noble Strathclyde, and I thank the noble Baroness Taylor of Bolton for introducing her report, a sensible report that introduces Retiral. And personally speaking, I will do what is recommended in the report when my time comes to fulfil the Retiral proposals. But of today I don't want to speak about the report itself, but the consequences of this report that will have, particularly on the cross benches, as Professor Meg Russell, in her brief submit to send to us all, said, it will have an effect on different groups and particularly the crossbenchers, with the help of Sam Anderson in the Convener's office, I've managed to get some figures to illustrate this, and I'm afraid, after the erudite speeches that you just heard, mine will be a boring lot of figures, hopefully making the important point.

I use the figures in the report itself, but realise that they change all the time by new appointments and return returns, and occasionally some debts. So if you look at the figures. The whole appointments which have been declining and currently in the crossbenches, there are 53 appointments compared to 101 appointments that are mainly prime ministerial appointments, and I'll come back to that later on. So the para 33 of the report states that the end of the session, 2426, there were 776 members of the House, or in total, of which 154 are crossbenchers.

Close to 20%, which the House has agreed ought to be the right proportion of representation of the crossbenchers. So if you now look at the retires as planned in July 29th, all those over 85 and those who might become 85 here there will be 38 crossbenchers leaving the house. Of the 135 total that will be leaving. That's the 30% of those that leave will be crossbenchers. That will reduce the numbers of crossbenchers to 116 in 2030. And when the 84 year old should leave the B 43 total leaving, of which 13 will be crossbenchers again, 30% of total that will be leaving and will reduce the number of crossbenchers to 103 in 2031 at the age of 83.

Those leaving the total leaving will be 56. Of those, 56, 17 will be crossbenchers again, 30% of those leaving. And that will reduce the number of. After three years, the number of crossbenchers remaining 86 out of 154. The total number of the house will then be 542. That is 16% of the total house. So the four. There's already a 4% reduction of crossbenchers. If I now look at the participation briefly of the figure of 42 of current crossbenchers will come into the category of attendance of less than 20%, of which 21 will already have satisfied the retired age group.

But that still is 21 who will not fulfil the requirements of participation. Therefore, the total number of crossbenchers leaving in the three years and I haven't looked beyond that. It's three years. It's 89 of 154 remaining after three years. If no more appointments are made, the crossbenchers will therefore be 65 in number. There would be 12% of the total of the house of 542. Now, if you look at the appointments, currently there are 53 members of the crossbenchers who were appointed by Holac and as I referred, Prime Minister appointments and some others which are hereditaries with 101.

Since 2014, the prime ministerial appointments have been twice in number compared to all appointments. The message, therefore, is clear unless this is taken into account the cohort crossbenchers within three years, not six years or seven years, will be reduced to less than half the number that we have now, considerably less, and they will not be whole appointments. So two things need to be addressed. The numbers of crossbenchers needs to be appointed, starting now. If we're going to start, even in 2029 of people beginning to leave, which will be significant numbers and the numbers appointed by Holland needs to change compared to the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister, I hope that's the point. The message is about the figures that needs to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

addressed. It's a privilege to have. Served on the committee whose report we are debating today. I report we are debating today. I should thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton for her exemplary Taylor of Bolton for her exemplary introduction and even more for her remarkable skill in drawing out a unanimous conclusion from the committee and the evidence that we heard, mainly from members of this
17:05
Viscount Chandos Portrait Viscount Chandos (Labour)
-
-
heard, mainly from members of this House. I'm sure that skill is innate, but I was regularly reminded of how this may have been honed by her training in the House of Commons whips office, as so brilliantly portrayed in James Graham's great play, this House. I believe that of those speaking today, I've been a member of your Lordships House for longest, longer even than the noble Lord Lord Strathclyde, having served nearly 45 years with a six month sabbatical between the 1999 act and my appointment as a life peer, I say this not to claim great wisdom or expertise, more the opposite, but to make two points.

First, I've witnessed the evolution of the house during that time, from when one where the expectation was undoubtedly one where irregular participation, bringing in some cases exceptional expertise was seen as the norm to, more recently, a more professional political full time culture. I think that, on balance, that has been a positive development. I've also, during my time, had periods of relative inactivity myself, whether because of particularly intense outside commitments or because of, for instance, my slow transition from the Social Democrat Party to the Labour benches.

I understand the concern that the minimum. That minimum participation should not be set too high. I believe the committee's recommendation of 20% of sitting days, averaged over two sessions, strikes a well-judged balance. My noble friend, the Leader of the House, gave a very clear remit to the committee to identify if possible ways whereby its recommendations could be implemented without new primary legislation. The committee had particular regard for this, particularly in proposing sensitive and generous transitional retirements for the retirement age proposed in the manifesto, which I very much hope will be seen by all members of the House as fair and supportable.

I deeply regret that the noble Lord, Lord True's opening remarks seemed to be discouraging that even while describing the report as excellent, the committee's remit did not explicitly refer to the objective of reducing the size of the house or, to be pedantic, the numbers of its members. But the government's manifesto commitment of a retirement age of 80 was quite clearly in the context of reducing numbers, following the undermining of the excellent recommendations of the Lord Burns Committee by first, the Johnson government, of which the noble Lord True was a member.

That context is important, as it is central to the point that the proposal make no judgement about the capacity of people over the age of 80. Generally or specifically, members of this House of that age, I am afraid I disagree with my noble friend Lord Blunkett on this, who I otherwise Revere. My noble friend Lady Taylor, described the debate in the committee about fixed terms as an alternative or complement to a retirement age, and I would have been delighted if we could have achieved the necessary consensus to make terms the sole or significant test of continuing membership.

I very much hope that today's debate, despite Lord True's malign tone setting, gives my noble friend the Leader of the House, the confidence to follow the self-regulatory path. She asked the committee to consider if, however, the support is not there for this, I would fully support primary legislation to implement a retirement age or perhaps term limits to achieve the regular, consistent rotation and refreshing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the house's composition. Yes, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, sir. A pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, and it gives me an opportunity to thank him and the other members of the Committee for other members of the Committee for the work which they put in under the obviously skilful chairmanship, the obviously skilful chairmanship, if I can use that word of Baroness Taylor of Bolton. I hope it wasn't
17:10
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
Taylor of Bolton. I hope it wasn't particularly malign of the shadow Leader of the House to refer to me if I can pick up that word, because I was going to follow to make a couple of legal points, and in particular, one legal point, which I think is important for the House and perhaps those outside it, to bear in mind as to what these proposals will do and importantly, what they will not do. And I would suggest that paragraphs 83 to 85 of the report, we pay careful reading because this House is self-regulating and therefore enjoys exclusive cognisance over its own proceedings.

But as the committee correctly recognises, that principle operates within the wider law of the land. Parliamentary privilege does not enable the House, whether by standing order or resolution, to alter, let alone to abrogate, statutory rights, and that matters here. I would suggest existing life peers have, under the Life Peerages Act 1958, a statutory entitlement for life, to receive a writ of summons and to attend, sit and vote in this House and as paragraph 84 of the report records, the advice received by the committee from senior officials of the House was clear.

Neither a standing order nor a resolution can override that statutory entitlement. Indeed, the report says that an attempt to do so would arguably constitute a challenge to the rule of law. Because the law is the law and a standing order is, with respect, just a standing order. So we should therefore be clear about the legal effect of what's proposed for existing members. The proposal is that they should retire at the specified age. Now, that is an expression of opinion of the House.

It carries an expectation it may carry some moral or indeed some political force. Political groups may support it. They may somehow seek to give effect to it, but it does not. It cannot change the law. It does not extinguish the statutory right of an existing member who might choose, for whatever reason, not to comply. And indeed, the committee itself is candid about that. Paragraph 85 says that the resolution would not purport to be binding, and the implementation would therefore depend upon the cooperation of individual members and party groups.

By contrast, the position would be very different for new members. The committee recommends that anyone nominated for a peerage should be for the period is conferred. Give a written undertaking to retire by the 80th birthday and of course that then can be enforced under the House's power of sanction under the House of Lords Expulsion and Suspension Act 2015. And that distinction seems to me to be constitutionally important for future members. The obligation is one which they accept when they enter the House.

The consequences of breach are made clear to them in advance. But for existing members, for everyone sitting here today, Parliament has already conferred the relevant statutory rights for life and those rights and they are legal rights cannot be rewritten or abrogated retrospectively by resolution. Now, let me be clear. None of that is an argument for or against retirement at 80. My remarks are not addressed to that issue at all. My remarks are addressed to an argument for constitutional clarity, because if the government wants to impose a legally binding requirement for a retirement age on members, the report identifies the route, and that's legislation that legislation would permit Parliament to identify and to decide the issue expressly.

But if we decide to proceed by resolution instead of legislation, we should ought to be clear about what we are actually doing. We are expressing the view of the House, and we expect existing members to comply with it. But we are not changing because we cannot change by way of resolution. Those members current existing legal entitlement to remain members of the House. Now, that distinction, I suggest, is not a legal technicality. It is, as the Committee itself recognises, a matter of the rule of law and whatever view we take of the merits of these paragraphs of the report, the rule of law is not an inconvenience to be worked around.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is the framework within which within which all of us must operate. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, I strongly welcome the report. I congratulate my noble friend and her colleagues for friend and her colleagues for producing a unanimous, thoughtful and forward looking report which I and forward looking report which I hope we can effectively endorse today and in due course, adopt its today and in due course, adopt its recommendations. Taking on the implementation of a manifesto commitment ourselves is surely the best way to bring about change. Not dragged screaming and shouting to the inevitable outcome, but by
17:15
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
debate consensus. I therefore very much regretted both the tone and the content of the speech by the the content of the speech by the official opposition. I would have thought that the noble Lord Lord True would have learnt from his experience of resisting and resisting the Grocott report. The resisting the Grocott report. The bill, which would have very gradually ended the hereditary principle, and we probably would principle, and we probably would never have had to, in his words, expel in our sense, let go of the Hereditaries.

He resisted that in government and then in opposition. And that is a shame. I hope we can do this differently. This is a working, a legislative house. Whatever decisions we take on this today must be centred on what enables our time, the time of peers, our expertise and our collective wisdom to be best used. It's not a retirement house. It should not be a thanks for services rendered. It should be a heading on my list. When I came here, said a working peer.

And our central role is to share responsibility with the Commons to make Lords laws. I have indeed always worried about being appointed for life rather than for as long as you can contribute, which is why I welcome the introduction of a participation requirement. My noble friend would have quite liked him appointments, but I strongly welcome the introduction of a retirement age, partly because we all fade with age, but more importantly, because if we are to do good work here, we need to be continuously refreshed by those more recently in their particular area of work or expertise.

When I arrived 16 years ago, I was very fresh from the consumer and the charity world. But that experience is now 16 years old, so surely it's right that we begin to move over and let those with more up to date experience, contacts and knowledge make their contribution to emerging legislation in their areas of expertise. We do not hold in our heads all the experience of the world. We could do this by maximum terms of appointment, as I've said, but the Labour manifesto took the other decision that it should be age and that that was the correct criteria.

And of course, we'll lose some members who we will miss a lot. I think we'll still be friends with them, but we would be able to welcome a new generation with much to offer. These proposals won't solve the issue of the size of the House, but they do do two things. One is to signal that we recognise the need for a reduction in size, and that we have designed tool to start that process, rather than leaving it to the Commons and the government, who could be rather more draconian? Secondly, it begins our side of that bargain.

We're choosing to slim down, and our example should help stay the hand of future prime Ministers. I hope whether this or any other government, about how many people they appoint here. The government was elected on a manifesto with a retirement age of 80. We should help that happen. The process is ingenious. It is staged but clear and predictable. We've all looked to see if our date and retirement. And I'll tell you a secret. I'll be leaving on my birthday. I'm one of those there.

There will be a time, therefore, where I will be the oldest person in the house. I never thought that would be my aspiration, but it is now. I support the report. Let's do this ourselves. Let's do it willingly, not enforced on us, and let's do it with a bit of humility as well.
17:20
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the committee for their work and their report. And I note, of course, the limits of their remit. My Lords, I support the principle of a retirement age. As an unelected house, I think there is a good reason for us to put in place boundaries where the electorate may decide our fate differently if given a choice. But my Lords, logical thinking forces me to confront reality. I also know the electorate may well not choose any of us to serve, given half the chance.

So I think it's really important before we make structural changes that don't result in his becoming an elected chamber, that we are clear what problem needs fixing for us to best serve the public in our appointed state. And I very much echo what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has asked of the noble Baroness, the leader, which is that she is clear when she comes to wind up what problem she thinks her proposal is there to address, because if it is the size of the house, as suggested by the Labour Party manifesto, then a retirement age would be a quick answer.

But I think size is a symptom, not the cause of the real problem we must address, which is that this house has become less about service and expertise and is becoming far more politically motivated in our work. And if we are to change that, we must understand and address the part we've all played in causing that to happen. Now, members of this House have often criticised successive prime Ministers for appointing increasing numbers of politically aligned peers, but rarely, if ever, acknowledge our own contribution to this ratchet effect.

Just because noble Lords are not partisan does not make them non-political. And what constitutes political in the eyes of the public often crosses party lines, and this problem reached its nadir after 2016, when this House enthusiastically defied the majority of leave voters in its efforts to prevent Brexit from being implemented, and did all it could to dilute legislation to tackle illegal immigration. Now, all that said, that doesn't mean this House doesn't still do good and important work.

And of course, it is not the role of the House of Lords to make life easier for the government of the day. Whichever party is in power. But as we have become individually more political in our intent and style, showing the same vices as the Commons without the virtue of being democratically elected, we can't ignore that. The case for us, continuing in this unelected, appointed state is harder to make. As to what's in front of us and how the recommendations stack up.

As much as I support the principle of a retirement age, I believe that, more importantly, we all have an ongoing duty to question whether we are still doing our best and are still best equipped to remain. And although I can see some support, a minimum principle, minimum participation, I can see why some support a minimum participation level for peers. If we want a more expert and less political appointed house, we will need more, not fewer peers, as any credible measure of effectiveness would require them to attend less.

My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto restated its commitment to, and I'm quoting now, replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber. But not only do we not know what that might involve, it's a promise we've heard before, and perhaps the noble Baroness, the leader, could give us an update on that when she comes to wind up. What we do know is that Labour, when in government, has form in attacking the structure of the second chamber without addressing the real problem it has helped to create and in doing so has exacerbated this House's greatest weakness of being a political chamber without a democratic mandate.

Expelling the over 80s alongside the hereditary peers won't fix that problem, even with a staggered exit, as the committee proposed. My fear is not just that these changes on their own will have little, if no, impact on declining public trust. More importantly, recent history tells us that the consequence of these changes risks making matters much worse.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Well said. I agree that the committee have done a very good job in answering the questions that they were given. The report is it's thorough, it's The report is it's thorough, it's persuasive. And I thank Baroness Taylor and her committee for their work. Lady Taylor and I work together on the Lords Speaker's together on the Lords Speaker's committee, and I know how hard she's worked on this whole subject
17:25
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-
she's worked on this whole subject now for many years, taking the retirement age first. If a retirement ages is to be introduced, I agree that 80 is a sensible retirement age for new members. Any older retirement age I think, would be extremely difficult to sell to the public. I also support the proposed transitional arrangements for existing members and the suggestion to begin with a fixed date. Together, these eliminate the uncertainty of any proposal tied to election dates, and it avoids too many existing members leaving at the same time.

I also think the committee have reached a sensible conclusion on the issue of participation. It's a blunt mechanism, but the reality is that there is no other solution that isn't excessively complex and probably unworkable. I looked at many of them during the time of the are working with the Lord Pickles committee. However, whilst the report provides good answers to the exam questions in isolation, my view is that the proposals do not solve the underlying problem. The Prime Minister has said that he's in favour of problem solving, problem solving rather than point scoring.

I was taught that before making changes. You should ask two questions. What is the problem you're trying to fix and what are the causes of the problem? The Labour Party manifesto in 2024 said the problem was that the House of Lords was too big. And of course, there are two important reasons for the present size. The first reason, and the one that we are discussing today, is that members are appointed for life unless they choose to retire. The proposals in the report would help with this.

If implemented, there would be a one off reduction in the size of the House and subsequently the numbers leaving will be slightly higher than they otherwise would be. But the second and more important reason for the size of the House is that Prime Ministers are under no constraint about the number of peers they appoint, or the party balance of the appointments they make. Whenever there is a change of government, we see a pattern of leapfrogging, as prime Ministers appoint disproportionately to their own party.

The manifesto also said we will reform the appointment process. Yet the government has not gone anywhere near this as far as I'm aware. Consequently, there will be no obstacles to prime Ministers appointing any number of new peers to fill the space that will be created by the retirement proposals. My Lords, we need a package of measures which will reduce and contain the size of the House, not just for a year or two, but for the longer term, as Baroness Hayman pointed out, and I think Lord Strathclyde agreed, such a package should include a commitment by the leaders of the main parties to exercise restraint in making new appointments and to maintain a fair balance of appointments between parties.

The Leader of the House has often said that the House works best when the two parties are of a similar size. As Lord True pointed out, we are now approaching that position with the gap between the two main parties closing. This is the ideal time for some kind of movement. On the question of appointments and a fair balance of appointments between parties, my view also, the package should also include a generous term limit for new appointments. I don't want to rerun the argument of age limits versus term limits, but I do think we could have both.

A retirement age on its own would encourage younger appointments. Surely it can be no part of a reform process. That means that we have members here for 40 years, or maybe more. I find that quite astonishing. To summarise, I'm content with the participation participation proposal. I'm not in favour of a retirement age on its own or for its own sake, but I can envisage that it could play a valuable part in a more comprehensive package, a wider package to reduce and control the size of the house.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I have come to to listen as much as to contribute, and I particularly look forward to particularly look forward to contributions from the next three speakers from my side of the House speakers from my side of the House who all, like me, will be leaving on the 8th of July 2029. That will on the 8th of July 2029. That will be after nine years service in the House. And given that in broad
17:30
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
House. And given that in broad terms, I'm in favour of having a retirement age with a term if longer, so that we can appoint older people to the house, I've got no grounds for complaint. I also congratulate the committee on the work they did. They fulfilled the terms of reference, and I'm also mindful of my party's manifesto promise that there should be a retirement, that there should be a retirement age. But there's no doubt that what we are proposing, what is proposed.

My party's proposed and the committee has put into form is age discrimination now, not employees. So employment law clearly doesn't apply. But using that as a parallel example. Now, for there to be a retirement age, it has to be for cause. And so I think it's quite reasonable for this debate to touch on the issue. What is the cause for having a retirement age now in terms of size of the house? And I know it was in the manifesto.

My experience of the House tells me the size of the house is not a problem on this. If nothing else, I agree with the noble Lord Lord True. It clearly is a resource. The size of the House, I believe, is a resource that can be used productively. What the cause really is. As the noble Lord Lord Blunkett said, it's a proxy and it's a proxy for incapacity, and incapacity doesn't work just with age. There are as many noble Lords in this House demonstrate.

So I think there is a real problem. And in pushing this policy through, it was in the manifesto. But there's also the need to seize the the public mood that you have to explain with doing this because and because it's the manifesto. It was in the manifesto, I believe is insufficient. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, of of not so much on the basis of his views on ties, but on the self regulatory nature of this proposal.

It. It is a real problem, which I think is downplayed in the report and will be downplayed in practice. Of course, if the party wants me to resign in accordance with the rules, almost certainly will, but I will suffer an almost irresistible urge if I knew. When I get to the 8th of July, that in the following session there was going to be an important pensions Bill, I would find it very difficult not to push the limits in my particular case.

And so I think more thought needs to be given to how that part of legislation of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these proposals will be put into practice. I know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know. Like Lord, Lord Davis, I shall, if I'm still around, leave your if I'm still around, leave your Lordships House in July 2029. I should do so with regret and should do so with regret and equanimity, and I assure your Lordships that the few observations that I'm about to make do not that I'm about to make do not spring from self-interest. I pay tribute to the work of the Committee. They have faithfully fulfilled their remit, but, as others have suggested, was it the right remit? Of course, your Lordships do have an obligation not to obstruct government legislation which gives effect to a manifesto commitment.

But I know of no convention which requires your Lordships as to take the initiative
17:34
Lord Howard of Lympne Portrait Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-
-
in implementing the government's manifesto when the government itself has not seen fit to bring forward legislation. I endorse the forward legislation. I endorse the question put by my noble friend, Lord Strathclyde. What is the Lord Strathclyde. What is the mischief which these proposals are designed to remedy? It is said that your Lordships House is too big. By what yardstick? What harm does the size of the House inflict? What are the practical consequences of the size of the House? The largest number who voted in the three highest attended divisions of the 2426 session was 523 twice and 512, a number close to, but smaller than, the number who will remain.

After the first tranche of these proposals are implemented in July 2029, so it's reasonable to assume from those numbers that there are perhaps 200 members of your Lordships' House who rarely attend, except perhaps to fulfil the requirements necessary to maintain their membership. What harm do they do? I've always believed that if something isn't broke, you shouldn't fix it. I don't believe your Lordships house is broke. Regardless of the number of peers who are eligible to attend its proceedings.

But my Lords, not only do I believe that these proposals are unnecessary, I believe they would have unfortunate consequences. There are many members of your Lordships House who make valuable contributions to our proceedings, long after they've reached the age of 80. Who can doubt that our proceedings would have been the poorer if we had been deprived of the wisdom of the late and very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much lamented Lord Mackay of of. 18.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I had the privilege of sitting in Cabinet with James, where he was listened to with the same respect listened to with the same respect and attention as he was later, as a backbench member of your Lordships' backbench member of your Lordships' House. Why should we impair the quality of our proceedings by this quality of our proceedings by this act of self-harm? My Lord, the committee's report contains no reference to cost, so I asked the library to do a few calculations.

First, we have to make a few assumptions. I hope the ones I've made a reasonable one can't, of course, be certain. Suppose. Just suppose, my Lordships, my Lords, that the 200 or so members of your Lordships House who rarely attend, now decide that in order to maintain their membership between now and 2029, they ought to fulfil the participation requirement and attend 20% of the sittings of the House. That, of course, might impose some strains on the facilities of the House, and they might decide to speak.

We have a generous time limit of five minutes in this debate. Could we, in future, be allowed to intervene in debates only for a matter of seconds, not just at Question time, as we were told earlier today. And the cost? These members would no doubt claim the allowances to which they'd be entitled. I asked the library to estimate the cost which that might involve. They provided various estimates, the the highest of which was £9.8 million, nearly £10 million.

My Lords, is that the best use of taxpayers money? Has the Chancellor been told. Could this be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the bond market? My Lords, we're all familiar with the law of unintended consequences. Do we want to provide an example which may be cited with relish for many years to come? My Lords, these proposals are unnecessary and could lead to consequences which I suggest many of your Lordships would find

**** Possible New Speaker ****

undesirable. I think they should be rejected. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I very much associate. Myself with the people who've already. Congratulated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Particularly my noble friend Baroness Taylor of Bolton, who's performed a trick of delivering unanimous support from people who didn't agree with one another on didn't agree with one another on more than one occasion over the 40 odd years that she and I have been
17:39
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
around in this House, I should also declare an interest. Well, I don't know whether I declare an interest know whether I declare an interest or whether I'm a beneficiary or a victim of this bill, because I too. victim of this bill, because I too. Affected by it. And I have to say that from July the 8th, 2029, the House will have to learn how to House will have to learn how to cope without me. I, I, I expect that the nation will remain calm.

And I do I do mention this, my Lords, because much of my view of it is affected by the time I spent as as Chief Whip, and I'm certainly not going to name any names, but there were people coming in at very advanced ages who were not fit to come in, whose spouses desperately didn't want them to come in the House, didn't want them to be here. But as long as they were clinging, as they did to the explanation that they'd been appointed here for life to support the government, the Labour government at the time, it was their duty to do so.

I think a retirement. I welcome a retirement age. As far as I'm concerned, it gives you a date to work to. I do not regard it as expulsion. I've had more than a good innings, and I also think it's desirable because. What does it tell you about the about the composition of this house when I say that by 2034, if everyone in this House now over the age of 75, were to depart, we'd lose 367 people. Or put it another way, 367 people of the 776 current members of the House, virtually half the House is over the age of 75 and lingering around the age of 80.

Now, that is not a good population balance, and I think we we really ought need to recognise that. And not least, I find a pretty weak argument. I have to say that somehow or other, losing these people will be one step short of a disaster. We've got precedent. In 1999, 667 peers left this house or were expelled would be what Lord True has said. The. I hate to say this because it may upset people. 88 went in 2026, the House carried on as my noble friend Lord Chandos has said, in many ways it improved.

It is not that the institutions bigger than the individual. If we look down the corridor to the Commons at the last general election, as a result of the last general election, 335 new MPs arrived. In other words, people over half the House is brand new since 2024 and the house is coping well. Well, I happen to think it's a lot better than when I was there, but it's doing well and it's functioning properly, so I support the retirement age.

I also support the participation requirement, and I'd only make a very brief point about this, that I do think 20% is quite low. I think it should be higher than that. And I'll make another uncomfortable observation, which is this, that there are broadly two broad brush trusts, this broadly, two groups of people in the house, those who see it as a full time job and those who don't. And it's a good job, those who see it as a full time job, if they they all reverted to working for just 20% of the time.

It would not be good for the house. But the. The real problem we've got, and I must make this point and I have to make it brief. There are a group of people in this House who will block every attempt at reform of any sort. They oppose the 1999 act. They oppose the appointment of Lord speaker. They imposed a. Posed. The powers of the Lord speaker, any change in sitting times they've opposed. And of course, they also opposed my bill. Simple little bill to end the hereditary peers by elections.

Whatever we come up with, there's a block of people in this House who will say, no, we're not going to do it. And that makes consensus very, very difficult indeed. But surely they've learned the lesson. And this is my final remark. They've learned the lesson from the experience with hereditary peers. If you don't deal with obvious absurdities in the operation of the house, i.e. the hereditary peers by elections, then sooner or later someone else will come up with something to do it for you.

And there are people sitting in this house. I won't name them and embarrass them, who ferociously opposed every small step and ended up, of course, with the big step of all the hereditaries being expelled on the same day. There's a lesson for that. We do it ourselves, or us.
17:44
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
Yes. First sight, the retirement section of this report has much to section of this report has much to commend it. I welcome the fact that the committee was looking for a solution that would avoid the need solution that would avoid the need for legislation on this issue. Very much for the reason that, no, the Lord Grocott has just been Lord Grocott has just been mentioning it must surely be right for the House itself to decide what to do and how to control this process.

I also welcome the decision to identify a notional date for the end of this Parliament. In place of the words used in a manifesto commitment, they left the date open to whatever date is chosen for the next election. For my own part, the element of certainty that it introduces as I'm in the same position as the noble Lord Lord Grocott on this point too, I can. I can now plan ahead as to how should date my retirement without running the risk of an early.

But an early election would upset these plans. That said, my Lord, I wonder whether it really was right for the committee to accept that the retirement age has to be set at 80. Given the situation we're in just now, without giving greater weight to the effect that this would have on the various party groupings, many of us on the Crossbenches have already reached the age of 80. Of course, the effects of advancing age varies from person to person and views about what people over 80 can do tend to change the closer one gets to that age.

But many of us are still very active in the service of this house. I was already over 80 when I was elected for the second term to serve as convenor of the crossbenchers, the Lords. If we have to set a retirement age and I emphasise the word if, it would surely be better to aim higher and set it at 85. I have no self-interest in making that point as I'm now over that age, but it would give more time for those, such as former judges, who cannot come here until they have retired, to make a meaningful contribution to the work of the House before they must leave, further setting the age of 85 instead of 80 would mitigate a very real problem for the crossbenchers, to which my friend Lord Patel has referred the number of those on our benches who would be facing compulsory retirement by July 2029 under the proposed scheme is 69.

That is getting close to one half of the number of those sitting on the Crossbenches referred to in paragraph 33 of the report, which is 154 sitting the age of 85 would reduce that number from six to 9 to 31, which is more in keeping with what we could cope with. Given how slow recruitment is to these benches. As for the participation section, I accept that the most practical solution is to concentrate on attendance. My practice as convenor was to write to those who fell below 10%, suggesting that it was time for them to retire.

Given that we would be setting a threshold and not making a suggestion, 20% would seem more reasonable. But there is a practical problem that the report does not address. How are the less frequent attenders to keep track of their performance? It would be most unfortunate if a member who had very good reasons for not being able to attend regularly, was to fall short by a tiny margin, which could easily have been made up if he or she had been given notice.

That was a risk of falling short. Something does need to be done to address this problem. If we are to proceed with this proposal. I make one further point. Mention is made in paragraph 97 of setting up an emeritus association for retired members. This idea is all very well for those who live in London and the South East, for whom keeping in touch will be relatively easy, but for. Further thought does need to be given as to what this would have to offer.

For people like me who live further afield. Given that reimbursement of the cost of travelling from the places where they live will no longer be available when they retire. An emeritus association is a very good idea, but it must be suitable for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everyone. My Lords, I was privileged to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of. The committee. But before I. Come to the report itself, I want to just focus on a curiosity which is this? Which is why was the select committee set up in the select committee set up in the first place? Because the commitment in the Labour manifesto was very in the Labour manifesto was very clear, which was to remove to have a retirement age of 80 and for peers to leave at that age.

And the government didn't hesitate to bring in the bill to remove the hereditary peers. So why are they hesitating about this? And I think there are there are two reasons. First of all, I don't think the people who wrote the manifesto on this subject thought through the implications at all. They just scribbled a few words that sounded good. But secondly, I don't think
17:50
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Portrait Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Conservative)
-
-
the government really wanted to have a bill going through Parliament, which could open up a Parliament, which could open up a Pandora's box on House of Lords reform, which is why I believe the Leader of the House instead wanted to find a way to bring in a to find a way to bring in a retirement age without legislation. Hence the device of the Select Hence the device of the Select committee to let the government off the hook. And this is why the terms of reference specifically asked us to look at options which would not require primary legislation.

The committee's terms of reference were also curious in some other ways. We were not asked to consider whether there should be a retirement age, if there would be a retirement age was a given. The terms of reference did not specify what the objective was we were being asked to achieve. There was no mention of reducing the number of peers in the house. Yes, we were asked to say what impact our proposals might have on the size and working of the House, but not on whether the impact would be positive or adverse.

In other words, the terms of reference meant that we had to skirt around many of the hard issues which would be debated more thoroughly if there were legislation. Nevertheless, within these constraints, the committee did produce, I believe, a thoughtful and comprehensive report, and I have to thank, in particular the chair, the noble Baroness Baroness Taylor of Bolton, who steered us to our conclusions skilfully, and I also want to thank the clerk, Judith Brooke, and and her team, who were very patient as you made more demands upon them.

Finally, I want to turn to what I regard as a core issue, which is, if there is to be a retirement age, how to implement it for existing members. The terms of reference asked us to report on options, and we do. We set out two options, either legislation or a resolution by the House. The legal advice was clear. Option one legislation would make retirement mandatory. Without legislation, retirement would not be mandatory. However, a resolution could be passed by the House expressing the view that members should retire no later than the age of 80, but it would not be binding on members.

It would instead depend on the cooperation of individual members and on peer pressure. And there was another factor which preyed on my mind would it be right for the House of Lords alone to decide for itself, at what age members should be compelled to retire? Should an unelected House, as we are, decide who could and who could not sit in the Lords? Yes, of course, when it comes to transgressions of personal behaviour, but otherwise, should we. Nevertheless, after much discussion, the Committee did come to the view that if the primary objective was simply to implement a retirement age, a resolution of the house was the simplest way.

But the two options are very clearly set out in the report, and I believe it is now for both the House and the elected government to consider each of them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to evaluate each of them. My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Baroness Taylor of Bolton friend Baroness Taylor of Bolton for introducing this debate and her and her committee for this and her committee for this impressive report. A model of clarity and brevity. As I have often said, it is an honour and often said, it is an honour and privilege to listen to the depth of expertise in your Lordships House, expertise in your Lordships House, sometimes from some of the most venerable peers, as we are witnessing today.

Nonetheless, I support the committee's proposals. A retirement age of 80, all members
17:54
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch Portrait Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Labour)
-
-
being treated equally, irrespective of expertise or position, and with of expertise or position, and with generous transitional arrangements. This is a genuinely modest proposal which will bring the profile of which will bring the profile of this chamber more in line with legislators worldwide and the adult legislators worldwide and the adult population generally. Quite simply, at an appropriate moment at a time at an appropriate moment at a time which is well into retirement in most walks of life, we should make way for the rising generations.

They are entitled to bring their valuable expertise and current experience to to the challenges of the time in which we live. Our younger noble Lords on all sides of the House have demonstrated many times that age does not confer superiority. I am inspired in moderation by my noble friend Lord Kinnock, the first Labour leader who I had the honour of working for and who was an inspiration for me as a moderniser. He was once an advocate of total abolition of your Lordships House.

Indeed, he once called noble Lords unelected busybodies, descendants of brigands, muggers, bribers and gangsters. Now in his maturer years, my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend, while still advocating For wider constitutional reform,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For wider constitutional reform, proposes nothing more radical than retirement. 80. For today's noble retirement. 80. For today's noble brigands, I know that there are many exceptionally active octogenarians and nonagenarians in octogenarians and nonagenarians in your Lordships House, many of whom I have long admired and are I have long admired and are speaking in this debate today, and who I hope will not consider me presumptuous. Being relatively new. But I think we should be honest, honest. Our faculties fade first the body and then mental capacity.

I know that only too well. My Lords. At the age of 71, the average age I think I heard earlier, this will be my last contribution to the debate here for a couple of months, because I am shortly having a knee replacement operation. I will miss you all, but I hasten to add that I look forward to resuming fully and I am still all there up top. Regarding the other matter to note, participation measurement is a difficult task.

Valuable unseen work versus seen work quality v quantity popping in or popping up. I bow to the committee's considered judgement. Judgement attendance of 20% of sitting days. I agree. More emphasis needs to be made prior to appointment on the nature of our work. With our higher contribution vow. Made clear from the outset. I wholeheartedly support these proposals and look forward to the response from my noble friend, the leader, and in the hope that your Lordships can reach consensus in a resolution of the House on this matter.
17:58
Duke of Wellington Portrait The Duke of Wellington (Crossbench)
-
-
Lords. allowed to speak in this debate. I'm one of the recent life peerages, but I. Mine was granted when I am already 80, and I would have thought it was surprising that the current government would agree to my nomination. However, and I of course, I should say here that I'm very pleased to follow my old friend Baroness Hayter in the debate on the Hereditary Peers Act. I asked the government not just to remove the hereditary peers, but also to carry out some other manifesto commitments, such as retirement and participation.

I was therefore very pleased to hear the Leader of the House in that debate proposing a committee to consider these matters, thus allowing me not to press my amendment on that point. I congratulate, as others have done, Baroness Taylor and the Committee for writing this report, which I totally support. The phased retirement starting in 2029 and the 20% participation requirement seem to me eminently sensible. When this matter is put to a vote. I will certainly vote in favour, but I do want to refer to two other matters which I alluded to in that earlier debate, namely removal of peers for misconduct and the disturbing idea that peerages are apparently sometimes given to large donors, to political parties in the House of Commons.

There is a mechanism for removing members for misconduct in the House of Lords. It is more complicated conviction of a crime and receiving a jail sentence of more than 12 months does lead to expulsion. But breaking the code of conduct normally only leads to suspension for a number of months. In my opinion, this is not sufficient and therefore brings this House into disrepute. In the King's Speech. The government announced that they would introduce a bill to remove peerages from disgraced peers.

I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House that she and the Prime Minister should consider rather, a bill to remove membership of this House from any member who has misbehaved. The title in itself no longer carries an entitlement to sit in this house. Look at all the hereditary peers and life peers who have retired. So for the integrity of this House, there should be, if necessary, legislation to remove the right to sit in this House.

Removal of titles could lead to unnecessary discussion of holders of peerages who are no longer members of this House. It could only be a gesture, and the Labour Party manifesto. It says Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them, and strengthen the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed. It seems to me that this manifesto commitment could be fulfilled by the removal of the right to sit in this House, rather than the removal of the title.

The other matter which has always concerned me is the apparent granting of a peerage to a donor of a large sum of money to a political party. We will all have noticed that reform have specifically said that the two recent large donors would not be given peerages if reform is ever in government. I think it is regrettable that they felt it necessary to state that, and shows, sadly, that the giving of peerages to party political donors has in some sense become normalised.

I hope all political parties could somehow agree to make it impossible for the impression ever to be created that members of this House can be given in return for large donations. So, my Lords, this report only deals with retirement and participation, but should certainly be agreed. It is another step in the continuing reform of this House, of which I am so grateful and honoured. Still to be a member.
18:03
Lord Mann Portrait Lord Mann (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, my only caveat on what I think is an excellently written and structured report is that perhaps it would have benefited from asking the people their view. I have done over many years. I asked the people when I was an elected representative, their views on many issues, and there was a rather strong view in relation to the House of Lords. The overwhelming majority repeatedly felt it should be elected. There was a bigger view on that than any other single issue I ever pulled on.

There were people who had a different view. There was a group who felt that would be outrageous. We should simply be abolished. That was a consistent but small minority. And there was a small subsection who very graphically were much more in favour of reverting back to the systems used when Henry the Eighth lived here, in terms of his methodology for reducing numbers of the House. The people's view on this is rather clear and clearly rather different to the views of this House.

The views of this House have been consistent, not just over the years, but over the centuries, when the Great Reform Act was being debated here, the arguments that were put most frequently against it were about the unintended consequences and the effect on the markets. The then Duke of Wellington had a strong opinion. He argued against, quote, because this would lead to the slippery slope towards total democracy. Something which hasn't quite happened in relation to the House of Lords, but has elsewhere.

So when universal suffrage was brought in and it was debated here, then instability, confusion, unintended consequences and problems in the markets were again repeatedly cited. The one politician, Asquith, did go a little further because Asquith suggested that the real reason for opposing it was because women didn't really want the vote. When the age was reduced. Voting age from 21 to 18. The House of Lords had a lot to say about it. It would be legally, legally confusing was one of the arguments that was put strongly along with the unintended consequences.

The impact on the markets, the confusion that would then prevail. So there has been a consistency. Every time there's been any move towards a change in the system, the House of Lords has come up with the same set of arguments and in a way is doing so again. I have a one slight caveat to that, though, because I'm in favour. Having spent nearly seven years in now, I can perhaps take a a long term view on on this place that it would be better if it was elected.

So I propose to Sir Keir Starmer. I've put the same proposal to the new Prime Minister that we should move immediately to elections. We should elect 40% at the next general election, 40% at the election after that, and there should be a commission to determine the separation of powers and the other 20% in the interim, with a much reduced figure of 300 peers. So should Lord True get anywhere with his proposals, that would be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

huge boost to my proposal. The Commons would, I'm sure, rally behind it, and. I would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would. Have the opportunity to put it to the vote. If we compromise with the the more traditional approach the the more traditional approach that's put forward in this report, then it will be incremental change. then it will be incremental change. But the people out there, I put it to the House, wish to see significant change. If we lag too far behind them, we'll wake up one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day and someone will have got rid of us. Well. Well. My Lords, I've always believed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the. Supremacy of the House of Commons, and I therefore always favoured an unelected upper house. And I've always thought it right that this House should concentrate on two things. It should concentrate on amending and improving legislation, which has improving legislation, which has been initiated by the government, and that in cases where many peers
18:08
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
feel that the government is going in the wrong direction, it can ask in the wrong direction, it can ask the government to think again, but it is not here to prevent the government from governing. And I government from governing. And I think it's in that context. We look at the membership of this upper house because, as I understand it, house because, as I understand it, that is still the view of His Majesty's Government. I see nothing Majesty's Government. I see nothing magic.

In the year of your 80th birthday, we know in this House that a number of people well over the age of 80 are very acute, are extremely well informed, and they help our debates. And we know all too often in our local communities that there are all too many people under the age of 80 who become enfeebled or disabled and would not be able to carry out their normal duties. And that will still be the case for, I hope, a very few minority in this House, and that will still need to be handled in a sensitive way by friends, by family, by colleagues advising the person to take advantage of the retirement provisions or, if necessary, the whips being involved.

But we should also remember that the grant of a peerage comes from His Majesty the King, and all those of us who've been through the ceremony will remember that it is the words of the Crown investing, the peerage in the individual. And the words are particularly significant because it doesn't just invest a title, a bauble, it invests the right to have a vote and a voice in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In the democratic context I've just described.

And so what this report says we can do is that by a simple resolution of this House, we can undermine the will of the sovereign on the recommendation, quite often of the Prime Minister, that these people so appointed have the right all the time they wish to do so to come to this chamber. Now, I think there are also big handling problems, some of them being well brought out in the debate so far. But let me give another case where there can be issues for for the parties, and that is that a party may have appointed someone who is good and doing a good job as a Minister or a shadow Minister, or a spokesman, or the House member appointed them as chairman of a committee, and I think it would be much better if there does have to be an imposed retirement age to say that they would not have to retire until the end of the Parliament, in which they became 80, so that there wasn't any unnecessary interruption in their work and their abilities.

One way of implementing part of the Labour manifesto would be to say that as from tomorrow, no new peer will be appointed without expressly saying that the right to a place in the Parliament is limited to age 80, and they would have to retire at the end of that date, and that would meet the requirement of the manifesto without having the disruptive impact that we're seeing through through these proposals. And I do hope the the government and the and the colleagues will think again, because I don't think this is going to have a happy outcome.

I think it does disrupt the talent and the expertise in the House. And one of the things that has impressed me when I came here from another place, slightly sceptical about self-regulating houses, is to see that on this big issue of how many people participate, we nearly always get about the right number for a big debate and the right number to cross-examine Ministers without a whole queue of others outside who can't even get a seat in the place. And so self-regulation of numbers seems to work.

Indeed, I think there are occasions when in this very chamber we're considering the detail of legislation when, despite the large numbers, we're still a bit short of backbench participation in those debates. So I don't really see the desperate need to reduce the numbers. But my final thought is, if the government still does think there are too many and would like even fewer participating, then the obvious thing to do is to just stop choosing peers for a little while. Because given natural wastage from tragic death and from voluntary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retirement, you can slim it quite quickly. Well Lords, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well Lords, the. Precision and clarity and the delivery of this report shows what delivery of this report shows what a class act is. My noble friend Baroness Teather. Yeah, yeah. When Baroness Teather. Yeah, yeah. When I do learn with the Lords programmes, I explain to the programmes, I explain to the students that every decision in Parliament, the elected House as the last word, there might be a delay, but they have the last word. We are nothing more than a large subcommittee of the House of Commons, with the authority and power to ask them to think again and again, and maybe again, but not
18:14
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
after that. That's the reality of our status, which is why I don't our status, which is why I don't support an election for this place. I want the power to remain with the I want the power to remain with the elected House as they have today. The last word I am covered by my The last word I am covered by my noble friend Lord Grocott. By this. noble friend Lord Grocott. By this. I'll be off on July 2029. I'll be 88.

What grounds have I got to complain? I mean, just think about it so I don't complain. There's a precision to that, and I think it's a benefit to the whole house. I would like my vote back though. When I go, I really would like my vote back. And there's no reason why peers who retire shouldn't have their vote returned. And it's always been a disgrace. And I think that's the one thing I might want to push for when duty arrives. And on the manifesto.

Manifestos are important. The public never read them, and this one was a fraud on the tax. Freezing tax allowances is a tax increase. That's the reality. The manifesto is broken. The day the Chancellor moved to freeze the tax allowances. So it's important to take it as a guide for what we want to be able to do. So I actually supported the process of 80. I think the solution and the transition that's come up through the committee is to be commended.

But what we mustn't do, in my view, is add any bells and whistles. Under no circumstances should we attempt to legislate, because it would involve the House of Commons, and they will have a different view about our structures than we have. And I think that would be wrong because it's based on ignorance. My ignorance was massive in the other place before I came here, and it was only when I became a Minister, I discovered how flexible this place was, and I wish I'd known when we were in opposition, how flexible it was.

I'd have had a lot of questions pushed down to my noble colleagues that we couldn't get dealt with in the in the Commons. So there's a reality there. But it is important that I think we deal with this and own the change. And I freely admit it's a couple of changes in terms of the transition, retirement and performance, if you like attendance, but I realise over the years to come other changes will flow from that. There will be constant drip of change.

We all want to do more. I fully accept that. But in this case we should stick to exactly what the report covers and not try and add on to it and give others the chance to write our rules for us. So I don't have any problem with this at all. I look forward to my noble friend's response to the debate, and I look forward to a timetable about when we might get some resolutions. I have a mental note that it's maybe early next year.

We'll have some resolutions to put into practice. Quite clearly, we've got a division between us. I mean, we've you know, I freely admit that, but I just hope there's a majority consensus to protect the wellbeing of the House from legislation and to actually support this unanimous report put together by a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cross-party group of people who all disagreed to start with. Yeah, yeah. My Lords, it does feel strange

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it does feel strange to be addressing your Lordships House this afternoon on the question of reform of the question of reform of the membership of the House of Lords, whilst not being directly in the whilst not being directly in the crosshairs of the process has occurred on every other previous occurred on every other previous occasion. But I have to tell you, Lordships, that when I re-entered this house as Lord Hawkhurst after a few weeks in exile, I expect it to be overwhelmed by a feeling of
18:18
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
legitimacy by virtue of my shiny new life peerage, in comparison new life peerage, in comparison with my rather aged and tattered viscountcy, which had served me so viscountcy, which had served me so well for 38 years or so. But my Lords, I was. I was disappointed, but referring to the remarks of the noble Lord Lord Blunkett, his noble Lord Lord Blunkett, his wisdom, his speech I very much enjoyed. He referred to P.G. Wodehouse. I had hoped to take the title of Lord Emsworth, but as we all know, that really should be reserved for an Earl.

So I was disappointed on on that front again. But, my Lords, turning to the business of the day, the Committee has done a very thorough job. I would say, in considering these intractable issues. And it's really no surprise at all. There is a considerable diversity of opinion around the House, but I think no one could argue that the committee hadn't discharged its function, hadn't approached this issue in an extraordinarily thorough way, and hadn't come up with a solution that, in its mind, was designed to avoid the the cliff edge that the naval Baroness referred to.

I was also very amused to hear the different views about election manifesto pledges that have come through, and I rather find myself, as ever, in the same field as Lord Rooker, to treat them merely as guidance, because there were obviously other commitments in the manifesto around a more substantially reformed House about which we're not hearing too much. So all election manifesto commitments are equal. But I suspect, my Lords, that some are more equal than others. But, my Lords, this issue of retirement and it is strange when we know that there are peers over the age of 80 who make such fantastic contributions to your Lordships House, and we've heard from Lord Hope and Lord Dubs has been referred to, of course.

And indeed, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who I have to tell your Lordships house is utterly unchanged in every way and in capacity, since he had the misfortune of becoming my boss and Secretary of State for transport. Now, nearly a third of a century ago. So, my Lords, I think what we're really talking about here, we're talking in code. What we're really talking about is capacity, and we have made progress on that issue. And I feel more that can be done by party managers and and, and the convenor and I hope will.

And I would suggest that the changes that have been made, the the allowance of voluntary retirement has been a positive development and perhaps something more of an expectation that we should be self-regulating in the great House of Lords tradition, in terms of our own retirement has been. Perhaps is something of a solution. But, my Lords, whatever the House decides, I feel that we are tilting at the wrong windmill. With this report and the primary challenge to the credibility and reputation and therefore the authority of this House is not, my Lords, one around age and retirement.

But I think it has to do with the executive's ability to control the numbers and make up of of this House. And we now have a situation where entry to this House is entirely at the disposal of the Prime Minister's patronage, with no limits on numbers, the executive of the day can, to a large extent, choose the new members of one of the juries it faces, and if it finds itself losing the argument, then it can just add some more.

So, my Lords, that method of controlling the composition of your Lordships house is ridiculous, and his name more defensible, I would suggest, than the situation that we had in the pre 1999 House. Say, my Lords, that should be the focus and much less on retirement. We need to control the numbers of people coming into this House. I would suggest, whatever the merits, and they're very considerable people arriving in the House. We go through a period of indigestion and that doesn't help us do our job.

Yeah.
18:23
Baroness D'Souza Portrait Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, of those who have >> My Lords, of those who have already spoken more than half welcome this report as as do I. And welcome this report as as do I. And I really had hoped that all that remained would be to vote in favour remained would be to vote in favour and hope that the report was fully accepted by the House and then implemented as soon as possible. That said, my Lords, it's unlikely that any process would be entirely simple.

Some will, as we've heard, continue to object to the idea of a retirement age and argue for life membership. Others will query the suggested retirement age together with perhaps additional creative ideas on how best to measure participation. But my Lords, what we have here is a workable, sensible, well thought through plan that will contribute to the reform of the House. We should seize it with both hands as a step towards a much needed further regulation of appointments to the House of Lords.

And in so doing, my Lords, we hope to begin to establish a leaner culture which will become an established convention under which all involved in the recruitment process and the working of the House, will respect a house that is certainly smaller, and one in which all members are committed to contributing to the work of the Lords. Well, also non-legislative incremental changes put forward in this report allow the House to exercise its much valued self-regulation. However, the fundamental issue, as most have touched on, is that the recommendations are based on the assumption that the Prime Minister of the day will exercise restraint in the appointment of new peers and cooperate in maintaining numbers.

Below, perhaps 650. Should this not happen in the coming years, it is likely that the government will enforce stringent legislative changes. These changes would not necessarily, my Lords, take into account dangers such as creating a cliff edge or of taking account of party balance. In seeking balance of numbers between the two major parties there may need in the future to be some constructive cooperation. Not to say courage, at least on the part of the whips who will have to persuade some minimally contributing peers to retire earlier than the rules require.

My Lords, as we have heard, the crossbenchers will be disproportionately affected by retirement rules. Having an older age profile than other groups and due to rather heavy losses of hereditary peers, this diminution of what must consider to be must be agreed and considered to be a valuable voice in the Lords is further exacerbated by the extremely spare recruitment rate of independent peers. Approximately two per annum in recent years. Given that the whole appointment system ensures an inflow of experts in fields often far from politics, and the growing need for expertise in technology areas that have not as yet been established, there is a case to be made for an increase in nominations to the crossbenchers.

My Lords, this report represents a genuine step forward and it should be embraced so that arrangements for leaving can be matched by those addressing recruitment to the House of Lords.
18:26
Lord Hamilton of Epsom Portrait Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. >> Congratulate the chairman of the Committee, the noble Lady, Lady Taylor, on this report, but I'm afraid I can't do that because it's afraid I can't do that because it's completely incoherent. And let me explain why. I'm going to be 85 at explain why. I'm going to be 85 at the end of this year, and I will be asked, under the terms of this report, to retire from the House in 29 2029. That is the date of the next election.

So are we really saying that the priority of the next government, or whatever colour it is, is going to be to produce statutory legislation to enforce these recommendations? I think I will probably will have gone by 2029. But supposing I completely lose my marbles and become completely unhinged, I might decide to stay on. And who can stop me without primary legislation, there's no way that I can be prevented from serving out my time until I actually die. So this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

My noble friend Lord. True, when he spoke in this debate, said, what is the question that we're trying to answer? I believe the question we're trying to answer is that your Lordships House is too big. There are too many of us, and it doesn't look at all good. We know that the people who do the work very rarely exceed 500, but the fact is that it looks as if there are nearly 800 members of this House, and that is too many.

I wrote a recommendation to the committee, which was never addressed at all, as far as I can make out, which actually suggested we should have internal elections. So each party group in your Lordships House will be told to decide on how many should stay in your Lordships House. So if you decide to reduce, you could do more than one of these elections. So your first slice might be 10% and you elect out of the House the 10% of people that you don't want, and who would they be? They would be the people who had lost their marbles.

They had been who might be of any age. Age is not not a determinant of whether you've lost your marbles or not. A lot of people younger than that who actually are completely incoherent and should be got rid of. There are people who don't come to this house, and therefore we could get rid of all the people who aren't contributing and keep the people who are contributing to the holding the government to account and revising legislation, which is the purpose of this House.

When I raised the question of internal elections in a previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, got up and said he thought elections were a terrible idea. He said people briefed against each other. I spoke to him afterwards and I said, how many elections have you Lord Cromwell actually participated in? He said, one, My Lords, I've contributed as a candidate in six parliamentary elections and one parliamentary by election. A number of those elections have been against Liberal Democrat opponents, and I say they really have a lot to teach all of us about briefing against people in elections.

And although democracy is imperfect, it is not a reason for us to reject it. We should elect the people out of this House that we don't want, and that is a much better way forward. It will reduce the numbers. This leaves us with a problem of those who are independents and so forth, and I think that they should group together and they should take the the percentage of cuts that they need as well. But that's something the committee could decide on.

There's a slight problem there, but otherwise we would see the same reductions across all party groupings in the House, and we would get rid of the people that we really don't want and don't House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. My Lords. I fully. Support the. Report and. I congratulate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate. My noble friend. produced. It and. On having got a unanimous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On having got a unanimous support. Even some of the voices are now dissenting from it. I'm also relieved that I no longer have also relieved that I no longer have to go on the media and always face the question of why am I? Why am I the token oldie? I can now say I the token oldie? I can now say I won't be much longer and the house will. The house will have decided, but I do think it makes sense to have to have a retirement age.

I suppose I'm the oldest person who's
18:31
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-
spoken so far. I may in fact be the oldest person who's going to speak altogether. So I take that as a, as altogether. So I take that as a, as a, as a claim as to why I'm no longer I no longer want to be the token in the future. My Lords, I'm token in the future. My Lords, I'm glad to have a fixed date of the glad to have a fixed date of the 8th of July 2019. It's a contrast. Those of us who have been in the Commons and lost our seats in the Commons will say, well, that comes Commons will say, well, that comes very suddenly.

We don't know what's going to happen until about the early hours of polling day and then out we are. So I think it's good to have the certainty and it means that we can prepare ourselves mentally for not being here. One benefit which has already been referred to is we shall now be able to vote in general elections. I understand that is the case. Maybe my noble friend will confirm that I once got a private member's bill through this House to give effect to our being able to vote in general elections, and it was objected by objected to when it got the Commons by an anonymous voice, I think a Lib Dem, but it was by an anonymous voice anyway, which I thought was pretty outrageous.

So. So now I'll be able to vote, and I hope the timing of my leaving here will be such that I can vote in the next election. By the way, I was looking at the leaflet about the arrangements for retired members. I think they're very generous. Being able to sit on, sit below the throne, being able to use the dining rooms and so on. In fact, they're so generous. I wonder whether there won't be too many people swamping. They're swamping the arrangements.

My Lords, I've always felt it's a privilege to be in this House. I think it's an honour. And I feel I feel that this is something we should acknowledge. So I'm not happy that there are several hundred people here, the ones who are not active, who use the title and who used the perks of being in this house without, in fact, making any contribution. I think that is wrong in principle, and that's why I don't like the idea that it's been put forward that, oh, well, there are 550 active members, so the others don't cause any problem.

I think they do cause a problem, and I think they're abusing the privilege of being here. And I don't think I don't think they should be here now. The committee wasn't asked and I understand why wasn't asked to make to consider issues that stem from the recommendations. And I'm grateful to Professor Meg Russell of University College London, for a very helpful briefing, which some of us had. Yes, I think there's widespread agreement. The House is too large. I've already referred to that, but there seems to be no not a sufficiently great advantage in getting rid of the 80 pluses.

If they are quickly replaced by a stream of people keeping the numbers very high. I think there has to be some more radical approach to this, by the way, in which prime Ministers make make their appointments. And I think we need to look again at the basis of appointment to this House, which should be considered in parallel with the 80 plus arrangements that we're talking talking about now. No. Lord Doyle Hamilton talked about individual party groups making their own decision and voting.

I once also floated that idea, and I was told it wasn't a good idea because it resembled a circular firing squad, and it would cause too much, too much dissent in each in each of the groups. Well, I don't know about that, but it was certainly an interesting idea. Well, I, I still look at the way in which people are appointed, and I'm afraid any system of appointing will be seen by outsiders to be flawed may not be flawed. It may be totally above board, but it will be seen to be flawed.

And that's why I share the view of Lord Lord Mann and others that I think an elected second chamber has to be an option, provided we retain the primacy of the commons, and then we can do the job we do, which is to scrutinise what was the work that the Commons do, and possibly even make some interesting counter suggestions. So I think an elected second chamber is inevitable. Sooner or later. We do need a second chamber. I don't believe in a unicameral system, but I believe that we could provide better scrutiny, more soundly based scrutiny and better safeguards for the individual, individual citizens.

Therefore, I would like us to move in that democratic election. But in the meantime, I think we should adopt these proposals. Yeah.
18:36
Lord Johnson of Lainston Portrait Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> My Lords. >> I have two interests to declare. The first is that I'm remarkably young. I followed the oldest member of the House speaking this debate. I'm probably one of the youngest, and I like that here. I feel so youthful. It is even more effective than some type of anti ageing moisturiser. And when I leave this chamber I feel immediately very old. My children think I'm 100. The techies I work with think I'm a dinosaur. So I would hate to think that there's going to be a cut off point at the top, a glass ceiling to my age, because I like the youthfulness that I can exhibit when I'm in this wonderful chamber.

And the second point I'd mention is that this place makes me feel foolish. I look around this chamber and I hear the extraordinary wisdom of my colleagues, my noble friends, noble Lords, and I realise that I am in the presence of greatness. So I feel young and foolish. These are emotions I want to maintain, and I think these measures, sadly, will change that for the worst. Because this is a Witan, a council of elders. The whole point is to have wisdom, which is a combination of knowledge and experience.

And so if you set a time limit on that, you immediately derogate the principle. And when I look around this chamber and I think of the individuals here, the idea that they should retire at 80 is bizarre, if not absurd, if not slightly offensive. I've just followed one of the most brilliant speakers, one of the most inspiring individuals of our country, who's 93 years old. I am having the good fortune to speak in the memorial service of Viscount Bridgeman, who died recently at 95, who until this year bicycled to the House of Lords every day and only couldn't attend for a short period because he'd suffered an accident on his trampoline.

The idea that there is some type of arbitrary age is also bizarre when you think that by the time this legislation or this act takes force, 7.5% of the population in this country will be over the age of 80. And whilst I don't believe in die, I know that the government benches do. In fact, they hold it as one of the core tenets of their existence. So how can they bring in to force an act that deliberately discriminates against people who are over the age of 80, when they're going to represent 1 in 15 people? And I also point out that Baroness Hayman mentioned in most jobs you have a contract.

Well, our contract is for life, and I think it's important that we remember that duty. I think it's also important to point out that in reality, in most businesses now, and in fact, we've recently changed the law to reduce the enforcement of retirement ages. So these policies go exactly against all the policies that the government themselves think are right. And if you think of the future, and this is important to think of the future, anyone born after the age of 2005, I'm told by my scientific friends they may not die.

The country's ageing, and we're going to find ourselves in a bizarre situation where we set an arbitrary limit of 80, when the whole population itself has average age could be over that point in the next hundred years. I also find the report, and I have the greatest respect for Baroness Taylor, Baroness Parminter and so on, who contributed to this report, seems to be one of those situations where it's trying to find a map to a location that they've been preset, rather than actually analysing whether these called reforms benefit this House.

The word reform has been used many times by my colleagues reform, reform, and not in the sense of congratulating significant donors, but in the sense of making something better. But no one has yet been able to point out to me how these reforms make this house better, when arbitrary retirement age of 80 would immediately preclude a large number of people who participated in this debate. So why should we want to remove those people, and how would their removal improve the work of our scrutiny and oversight of legislative and government action? No one has told me that yet, and I think we have to be very careful when we suggest that we somehow have to react to this move because it is popular.

This isn't my policy. It is a Labour government policy. It is entirely performative, so that they can say that they have reformed the House of Lords when they've done exactly the opposite. And if I may follow in the footsteps of my noble leader Lord True, for us not to take this through legislation, I think we are gross dereliction of our duties. It shouldn't be for this House to decide who sits in it. It should be for Parliament and we should have a fight about it.

If nothing else, to embarrass the government about their performative politics in the first place. And my second interest is my noble kinsman, my father in law Lord Hamilton of Epsom, who this measure, and I said, this is a declared interest will expel from the house, which means he'll be at home full time. And I think it behoves my family to make a plea to keep him here safe and sound where he can, as we've just heard, although I'm not entirely sure whether it was the electrifying speech I was hoping for Lord Hamilton, but where we've just heard he is continuing to make a significant contribution, even though he's past the age of 85 or so soon.

Well, and that, I'm afraid, is why I object to this committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. Previous debates on the future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Previous debates on the future of this House. The phrase form should follow function has been used on many an occasion in used on many an occasion in Baroness Davies care. Introduction. She stressed the committee's remit She stressed the committee's remit in that it was only allowed to deal with a small segment of the role and make up of the Lords, but by and make up of the Lords, but by ignoring input, the proposals cannot ensure long term expertise to undertake the fundamental
18:41
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
functions that we have of scrutiny in holding the government of the day to account. My Lords, I was in day to account. My Lords, I was in the first cohort of the 15 so-called people's peers selected by the Appointments Commission. There are only six of us left now. Eight died and one retired. But the Eight died and one retired. But the indomitable Countess of Mar was one of the female hereditary peers of the female hereditary peers selected to remain in her time, and was an exemplar in how to conduct effective scrutiny, as well as a mentor to several of us in a guardian extraordinaire of the rules and conventions of the House.

She retired at 80 and is still missed. Now, with the hereditary principle gone, prime ministerial patronage is supreme, able to drive input of peers with few brakes on the process. Surely entry and exit must be considered and balanced. Our function requires expertise in the widest range of topics, a breadth that requires carefully vetted appointments to the crossbenches. Yet, as we've heard, it will be the crossbenches that will lose the greatest number of peers in the plan laid out in the report that Professor Meg Russell.

A briefing has already been referred to, and my noble friend Lord Patel explained superbly the mathematics involved the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission must be put on a statutory footing and urgently allowed to appoint. If any of this goes forwards. To borrow a phrase from my noble friend Lord Sedwill, used on the today programme today, the question for each of us is what can I do for my country? The report recognises the need for leave of absence for those in major roles at home and abroad, but they have a duty to come back, to share their in-depth knowledge, or to leave, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker said.

Will the emeritus peers regain the vote? And as the noble Lord Lord Blunkett pointed out so clearly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one aspect glossed over in the report. It's been. It might be helpful to the House as a retirement booklet that I arranged to be published. And it clearly states in that that when members leave this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that that when members leave this House, they regain their vote. That might be helpful. But I'm really that's most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I'm really that's most helpful. And I apologise for not having read that properly. It was raised earlier in the week as well. raised earlier in the week as well. Thank you for the clarification. One aspect that glossed over is that some become less able to contribute well before the age of 80. Infirmity is not a preserve of older people. There was no reference in the report to an occupational health service, to which those who appear to have dwindling faculties, but no insight or other problems could be referred for in-depth assessment.

And some of us have been seeking that for some time. Standard appraisal processes wouldn't work effectively because those who attend rarely would not be adequately known to colleagues and staff. But the staff here know only too well who should be seen by an occupational health service. As for wider reform, no one should think that the widely varied and independent crossbench peers could be elected. They couldn't be elected if they don't have the funding or the know how, or the support to run an electoral campaign, and that lack will exclude many.

This report is sensible as far as it goes, but it won't solve all the difficulties of infirmity or simply being out of touch unless prime ministerial patronage is curbed or ceases until holac is the route through which all potential peers are assessed. And until we recognise that younger appointees will be in the House of Lords for decades and they may also fail, our functions may not be enhanced, but this thoughtful report that Baroness Taylor has presented very well is one that we should heed.

The danger is it could be consigned to the shelves unless we're brave enough to embrace it and end prime ministerial patronage. As it stands today. Excellent. My Lords, I've been increasingly concerned over the years about the preoccupation with numbers. It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse. What we
18:46
Baroness Fookes Portrait Baroness Fookes (Conservative)
-
-
should be looking at is does the House of Lords function? What is House of Lords function? What is its function? Does it function as well as it should? And then you base the numbers on your assessment base the numbers on your assessment of that particular position. So I of that particular position. So I believe that getting rid of so many peers, particularly the the crossbenchers, is going to be a mistake because I think that it will reduce the ability of the House of Lords to function as well as it does, particularly with its forensic examination of the committee stages and subsequent stages of bills and in the work of the select committees.

Those select committees produce reports which are revered way beyond this House, and I believe that they have an important role in helping to guide policy by the government, or to throw a spotlight on issues which have been neglected by governments. And I believe that the way we are now going forward to reduce the numbers is going to affect the effectiveness with which this House performs. And let us remember also that when it comes to considering bills in their detail, the House of Commons has long since given up any pretension of looking at bills in any detail.

When I was a young MP, God knows how many years ago now, it was an important part. But over the years that has diminished and diminished, and I suspect that the newer intake of MPs don't even realise that that was an important function and in my view, should still be an important function. So, my Lords, as I say, I am concerned particularly about the impact on the crossbenchers, which has already been alluded to, and I am very unhappy.

And it was alluded to also by Baroness de Souza, that only a measly two peers are are appointed each year, and I would like to hear from the. The leader. Is this going to change? Because to me it is extremely important that this is revised. Indeed, I would go further. I would like that Commission to be made statutory and given proper powers, but that is perhaps going wider than we should at this point. Let me turn for a moment to having an age limit.

I remember as a young woman, I was told, oh, you're much too young to do that. You haven't got the experience. No, no, no. Before you can say knife, you're too old. So I am not happy with any kind of limit. I fully agree that we need to deal with the the, the relatively few numbers who are incapable, but it certainly doesn't deal with the pre 80s, who may be functioning, who may attend the relative easy amount of 20%, but still contribute pretty little.

And they will have a free rein. Whereas many of those, and I confess I'm well over 80, so I'm pretty soon for the chop if it goes ahead. But there are so many who give of their wisdom and experience and knowledge, and I would be very loath to see that go. So you will not be surprised, my Lords, to learn that I am opposed to the suggestion that we should help ourselves by a resolution, and I also take the point that I believe we were on very, very difficult legal grounds.

I think it was Lord Wolfson and Lord Redwood who both gave very cogent arguments against relying on that as a as a relying on the doing it ourselves mode and saying that it should be by legislation. I agree with that, my Lords. I think it is right and proper that that should be the case. It was the government's own decision to put it in its party manifesto at the election. So therefore, I think it should take it forward in what I regard as the proper constitutional position.

So, my Lords, you will not be surprised to hear that I am not prepared to help the government in any way to build the guillotine by which I, and so many others, will be decapitated.
18:51
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> For this report. >> On retirement and participation. >> And. >> For their thorough. >> Work on this report, and for giving the House their clear giving the House their clear direction. As a result, through the consultation process, and to thank my good friend Baroness Taylor for chairing this committee and also for being available to every member of this House and other organisations to, to to talk about the report so that everyone knew where we were coming from.

I welcome the government's manifesto commitment to introduce a retirement age in the House and the steps taken in to advance this pledge have here today, my Lords, by allowing the House to lead this issue rather than proceeding immediately to legislation, we have created the space for a sensible and considered conversation and approach. My Lords, not just one. This night, allowing for the best outcome as the committee itself recognised. My Lords, the House is a better place to control the transition and for the practical details, it takes in the lead through a resolution of the whole house, rather than waiting for a legislative process.

The committee has proposed a retirement age of 80 and a minimum participation threshold of 20% sitting days. I worry about participation. I think that we need to have very clear rules or induction to new peers about participation in the House and in the work of the House, not only here, but taking things outside, like universities, working with the UN, working with Council of Europe, as many of our members do, and all of those global things, as well as being part of this House representing, you know, where it can.

But definitely that is an additional to other things. But 20% just turning up is not enough. I think people have to be active within the house. I know some people will disagree with me on these things, but I do think it is very important. Both suggestions will avoid problematically high number of departures and will ensure that the House continues to benefit from a full experience of active members as long as they're able to contribute. My Lords, I look forward. I look forward to the government's response, which I understand will be given later this year, and I support the government in taking its time to consider these proposals carefully, given their participants their particular significance in the future shape and the functioning of this House and our democracy by relation.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure if one has to declare an interest if you're an old man. But anyway, the reason I'm told for wishing to get rid of members of this House who are over members of this House who are over 80, is that there are too many peers. I can't think why this peers. I can't think why this opinion is held when there's absolutely no evidence to support absolutely no evidence to support it. I think we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist except for the rarest occasions.

There's always a seat in this chamber. When not in the chamber, there's always
18:54
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
space in the library, the Salisbury Room, or the peers writing room. Room, or the peers writing room. The maximum number of peers going through the voting lobby on any one through the voting lobby on any one occasion in the last year was, as my noble friend Lord True pointed my noble friend Lord True pointed out, 475. If you want to spread your net a bit wider, the average your net a bit wider, the average number voting in divisions in the last two years was 319, and these numbers, of course, include hereditary peers who've been got rid of.

So the numbers in practice would be smaller. The last state opening of Parliament peers had to be moved around by the doorkeepers to stop the place looking empty. They're all too embarrassed at what it might look like in front of the TV cameras. My Lord, when the Labour government, under Tony Blair, made the timetabling of building bills normal practice, this prevented the other place from having sufficient time to properly examine new legislation. This resulted in an even greater revising duty being placed on this House.

For this House to do its job properly at Committee stage of a bill, a sufficient number of peers is required to know the subject well enough to make sensible, constructive comments. Peers who are prepared to sit from after questions until 10:00 at night with just a short dinner break, I won't upset you by commenting on the food. My Lords, you need a large pool to find enough peers meeting these criteria for the many different and diverse subjects which go through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this house. How do you find them? Without A large. Number of peers to call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A large. Number of peers to call upon. There's something, in my view, even more important than the even more important than the practical difficulty I've just outlined. I am shocked by this discrimination against a group of peers of which I am one, by the way. peers of which I am one, by the way. First, it was hereditary peers. Now the. Over 80s. What will be next? What will this government next like to get rid of? Liberal Democrats.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Absolutely limit the number of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely limit the number of crossbenchers. Former trade union crossbenchers. Former trade union officials. The idea that under the cloak of claiming the house is too cloak of claiming the house is too large a government of. Whatever political persuasion can play fast political persuasion can play fast and loose with members of the second chamber is truly shocking. I leave your Lordships with one thought. On the 5th of January 2026, an amendment on the Chagos Islands was tabled and moved successfully by the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley.

He was 96.
18:58
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
He. >> He. >> My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and her committee for their report and the thoughtful way in which they have approached the subject they have approached the subject which there are, unsurprisingly, strongly held views. There is much in the report that I agree. Membership of this House should carry responsibilities and the public are entitled to expect active participation from those entrusted with the role. However, I am less convinced that the proposals before us address the wider questions facing this House.

My assumption is that the purpose of introducing a retirement age is, at least in part, to address concerns about the size and composition of your Lordships House. Indeed, the Labour Party's manifesto argued that because appointments are for life, the second chamber has become too large and committed to introducing a mandatory retirement age. If that remains the government's objective, I'd welcome some clarity from the Leader of the House in response Time and age to reduce the size of the house.

Because if the objective is to reduce the size of the house, I struggle to see how retirement alone will achieve it. The committee itself makes this point. It notes that increasing departures through retirement age will not reduce the size of the House. If those departures are simply used as opportunities to make additional appointments. It also observes that focusing only on departures are not. Arrivals will have limited effects. I think the committee is right. The unlimited power of the Prime Minister to appoint whomever they wish to a job for life cannot be ignored.

For many years, proposals such as those contained in the Burns Report have recognised that reducing the size of the House requires restraint in appointments. Without some mechanism to manage inflow, we risk treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying problem and resolved. I must also confess to some disappointment, that the committee did not look more favourably on the idea of term limits, although I was pleased to hear the support for term limits by the committee member, the noble Lord, Lord Viscount Chandos.

I believe we should think seriously about the principle that no parliamentary position should be held indefinitely. Being a member of this House should not be something we cling to for life. Indeed, I'd argue that we have failed in our duty if we have not encouraged, mentored and prepared the next generation or indeed the next expert to contribute more effectively than we ever could. I say this as someone who, under the committee's recommendations, would be retiring in 2076. Regular renewal is healthy.

Fresh perspectives are healthy. Term limits would also create a culture in which members know that their time is finite. That encourages people to participate, contribute, and make a positive impact. Quite frankly, I do not think positions for life are a particularly healthy principle in a modern democracy. On participation. I welcome the committee's recognition that the current threshold is too low and that reform is needed. The proposed requirement is a step forward, but I'd emphasise that this is a small improvement rather than the transformational one.

Participation matters, but participation requirements alone will not address the deeper questions that continue to surround this House. Scandalous is what the new Prime Minister described this House during his recent by election, and I therefore look forward to seeing what is presented by the Prime Minister as noble Lords will know I have a strong interest in wider reforms of your Lordships House. I have a Private Member's Bill due for Second Reading later this year to explore the next stage of the government's manifesto commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber.

While I welcome this report and the practical transitional recommendations it contains, I hope that the Leader of the House can clarify how the government believe these proposals will achieve the objectives set out in Labour's manifesto. If the intention is to reduce the size of the House and strengthen public confidence, what measures will accompany retirement and participation requirements to address appointments and memberships as a whole? My Lords, I look forward to hearing the rest of this very interesting debate and my retirement in 2076.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I too thank Lady Taylor and her committee for their work. My Lords, as one of the house's endangered species. Being in the over 80 bracket, I was reluctant to put my name on the speakers list. Clearly I have an speakers list. Clearly I have an interest in the outcome of the process, as the speakers list is
19:03
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
process, as the speakers list is sizeable. It is very unlikely that I will add anything new or exceptional to the debate. However, the more I pondered on the issue for debate, the more I became unclear about the assumed problem. The supporters of the proposals are claiming and aiming to resolve. So I look forward very much to the Leader of the House. Responding to the question posed by the noble Lord Strathclyde. Why are peers over 80 perceived as such a problem? Institutional memory is of vital importance.

Those of us who have been involved in large institutions and organisations where we have seen a raft of senior figures leave or haven't seen them being removed, we know of the dangers that follow, the dangers of the constant reinventing of the wheel, and that so often happens. I am pleased that Lord Blunkett raised the issue of discrimination. Age discrimination does not relate to mental capacity, health or ability to contribute. If any members of your Lordship House do develop issues of limited capacity, I understand we do have already powers and caring ways of helping resolve this issue, both for them and for their house.

There are all these ready, these mechanisms in existence. Members, of course, under 80th May also lose capacity. The scrutiny work of this House is vital. And as we heard from Lord Rooker during Monday's Second Reading, the other place is failing to thoroughly scrutinise much of the legislation they send to us. Thorough scrutiny by this House is essential. The loss of peers over 80, and I understand 301 will be reaching this age by 2029. The House will have a serious, destabilising.

This loss will have a serious destabilising effect on the chamber. Committees will be underpopulated and the daily function of the House could be seriously disrupted. We are regularly told that as a nation, we have an increasing elderly population. Surely the elderly need representation in this house. We, the elderly, do have experience of and understanding of the problems of being old. And I thank Lord Johnson for his comments on diversity and diversity and inclusion, which I think were very appropriate in this context.

Having heard many speakers, many of whom I think disagree that it's still not certain why these proposals are perceived as necessary. If the aim is to have a smaller house, then why not use participation in the chamber and the contribution made to the working of the House to guide such decisions? I look forward to hearing the Leader of the House and her responses to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comments made. My Lords, I support some of the committee's suggestions, but not others. I have never knowingly supported discrimination based on supported discrimination based on gender, race, religion, disability or age and will not support mandatory retirement age of 80 for members of this House. There are
19:07
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
members of this House. There are excellent members of that age and above who have brought unparalleled wisdom and experience to this House. It is worth noting that the UK does not actually have a general retirement age, though we have a state pension age. Two are not the same. There is no mandatory retirement age for an MP, Prime Minister, head of the state, councillor, company director or a mayor. People can continue in office as long as they can discharge their duties.

Therefore, the introduction of one retirement age for members of this house is inappropriate. Yes, there is a maximum retirement age for judges and magistrates, but the crucial difference is that in most cases, they make decisions as individuals. Whereas in this House, members make decisions collectively. Some have argued that forced retirement at 80 will help to renew this House by bringing in younger peers. Actually, there is no no barrier to that, and it is good to see younger peers in this House.

Some complain that we have too many peers, but that hasn't prevented parties from appointing new ones. I have no problem with the 20% attendance requirement as a condition for continued membership of this house. However, I wonder who will be sending reminders to members of how close they are to the 20% threshold and what the scenes will be in the Last Chance Saloon. I can understand the committee's the difficulties in grappling with the possible requirement to ask for participation instead of attendance.

Participation depends on partly on potluck in ballots and whether the bills fall within the area of expertise of the noble Lords during oral questions. Members can bob up and down but may not catch the government whips. I some may wish to be a member of the committee, but may not be favoured by the party whip and be silenced. Ultimately, working peers need to be distinguished from the rest. And as an emeritus professor, I like the concept of emeritus peer.

There's a kind of asymmetry to it. The reform that I really wish to see is, unfortunately, beyond the remit of the committee. It is the replacement of this House by an elected chamber in the 21st century. We should not have unelected chamber of political appointees with reserved seats for clergy from just one religious denomination. Other countries have two elected chambers of Parliament and we should learn from their experiences. This possible reform raises complex constitutional issues and needs very broad public and prolonged conversations.

The last thing we need is a clone of the House of Commons, where ruling parties over the years have curtailed debates and leaders have silenced a critical voices by banishing dissenters altogether. It is unfair. It is also unacceptable to have both houses under the control of one party, and its members must also not be on the payroll of private interests either. So I urge the government to begin the process of a meaningful reform of the House of Lords and bring up proposals forward so that we can make the desired constitutional change as soon as possible.

My Lords,
19:11
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Taylor is gone >> Baroness Taylor is gone somewhere, so I don't. But I would congratulate her on presiding over this report. Almost impossible to get an agreement, I would have thought people from time to time asked me what's unique about the House of Lords? My answer is quite simple. It's the only pensioners Parliament in the world. We have it in this House, a lot of experience, a lot of age, and most of us have been in some area of the public realm.

That's why it works, because there's a lot of former MPs, trade union officials, but basically people who've worked within the system of the rule of law. And that's part of our success. I would like to say briefly that remind people that this week we welcome Lord Leveson to the House. He is 77 years old. I'm sure he'll make a distinguished commitment, as he has during his working life, but to bring him in at 77 and throw him out at 80 doesn't seem to me to be the sensible, friendly or well thought out.

The next point I'd like to make is the Lord Hope, who is also not here. But he mentioned the difficulty of having a emeritus association and the difficulty of it representing Scotland, where a lot of people live a long way from London. Well, I was the person who established the European Parliament, former Members Association. It now has members stretching from the north of Norway, right through the continent to Cyprus. It can be done, but it's not cheap.

One of the problems are former members always had with the Brits is that they were always trying to do things on the cheap, not pay their subs, get away with things. If you want a proper. Former members of the House of Lords Association, you're looking at 300 to £400,000 a year to build a structure that will actually work and keep people in touch. The next point I'd like briefly to touch on is the matter of the compulsory retirement.

I just don't agree. We've had many speeches. I agree with them all. I think it's the wrong way forward. I certainly will not be voting for it. One of the problems with compulsory age of retirement, quite simply, is it doesn't distinguish between people. But I have been a member of the group run by Lord Norton and Baroness Hayter for many years, and I've consistently said there, if you want to get retirements, you've got to give people some form of financial recompense.

We pretend that everybody in here is millionaires. There are many members of this chamber who rely on their daily allowance to keep their standard of living up. I think after a period of years here, you should be able to rely on some sort of termination payment. You could, if you wanted to retire, people at 80 make 80 the peak year and let it then fall back. But what you can't do is just throw people out. That I began life as a trade union officer long before I was in politics, and we never expected people to work for nothing.

We always regarded people should be paid and should be paid fairly. If people come into this house and they get an income, frankly, it should just not be taken away from them and then deprived of any financial recompense. So what I would say, if you want to get retirements, get yourself a financial proposal which enables people to retire with some sort of pension and if you like, base it around 80 and then bring it down. But don't just throw people out.

I do not believe that that is fair or acceptable. I hope these thoughts have been of some value. If we move to the next stage, I may well be tabling an amendment about a pension or financial recompense a pension or financial recompense for people who are thrown out.
19:16
Baroness Hollins Portrait Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
-
-
Thoughtful and well-argued report. I just don't agree with all report. I just don't agree with all of its conclusions. I suggest in some ways it could have been braver. In paragraph 26, for example, the report says, and it's been report says, and it's been mentioned that its remit included considering the impact of its recommendations on the size and functioning and membership of the House. To me, this includes what happens after an age limit has been implemented. The public discourse focuses in part on size and participation, and a fixed age will have no impact on either of these unless we also look at how people come in.

And there's been a lot of talk about the lack of any limit on the number of life peerages which a Prime Minister can recommend. So we could require experienced and active members of the House to leave at 80, only for their places to be filled or more through prime ministerial patronage. Now, the Lords Speakers Committee proposed an overall limit on the size of the House, with appointments linked to departures and allocated according to an agreed formula. And I'd go further than the Lords Speakers Committee and propose an annual limit on prime ministerial appointments.

So if 46 leave each year, as current projections suggest, if the 80 age limit is is introduced, then a cap of 46 new appointments could be applied. And further to my noble friend Lord Patel's number crunching, I estimate that the percentage of crossbenchers will have dropped from 20% to less than 8% by 2034, less than 8%. So at least 20% of all new appointments would need to be crossbenchers. And maybe, you know, that sort of. It's just worth thinking about.

The crossbenchers do bring a very particular expertise and also tend to be appointed at an older age. We're revising chamber, and much of what we bring here is accumulated knowledge, judgment and experience, and those things do not necessarily disappear on our 80th birthday. So I find myself troubled by one aspect of the proposed solution the assumption that a particular birthday is the best way of deciding when somebody should stop contributing. I've spent much of my professional career thinking about disability, mental capacity, and the assumptions we make about people's abilities.

One thing I've learned is we have to be really careful about using a characteristic, such as age or disability, as a proxy for capacity. People age very differently. Some people at 80 have lost abilities they once had. Others remain intellectually vigorous, extraordinarily knowledgeable, capable of making a contribution which would be very difficult to replace. And of course, incapacity can occur at any age. So are we asking the right question rather than simply asking, how old is this member? Should we not simply be asking, is this member still making a valuable contribution? And are they able and willing to continue doing so? So I would suggest a slight modification.

Let it be the expectation that retirement 80 is the is the norm, but not necessarily an absolute rule. There's a separate and sensitive question of health and capacity. I'm not suggesting routine medical examinations or cognitive tests at 80 like you have to have for driving, for example. Not that they're very effective. That would risk confusing age with incapacity and disability with incapacity. Two mistakes we've tried to eliminate elsewhere in society, but we should not avoid the issue altogether.

And if there is substantial reason to believe that a member and this is the key point, if a member at any age no longer has the capacity to discharge the responsibilities of membership, we must have a fair, dignified and confidential way of addressing it, based where necessary, on independent professional evidence and with proper safeguards. Finally, I agree with an earlier speaker that age does not confer superiority, but members over the age of 80 have experience of the needs and life experience of the fastest growing generations in our population.

And the house would be poorer if we entirely lose their experience.
19:21
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Lords who've paid tribute to my noble friend Baroness Taylor of Bolton and the Committee for the work that they did, and they work that they did, and they produced a good report. I know they didn't publish any of the evidence, but can I just say that I hope the but can I just say that I hope the historians of the future will have access to that evidence as part of the business of explaining how the House has evolved over the years. And I don't, in fact, envy my noble friend, the Leader of the House, the job of trying to sum up today's debate, given the range of speakers that we've had so far, and what we will still to come.

Is there any member here who does not have an interest in the outcome of this debate? The answer is I doubt it. I'm sure many members looked at the report at the moment they saw it. They turned to the point at which they would know their own end date, and I am no exception. But I hope the House will understand. My Lords, if I say that I've been here before and for most of the last two and a half years, I was only too conscious of the fact of the effects of the final day of the last session.

Now the whole House knows the significance of the issues identified in the report, and they do arise as a result of a manifesto commitment by my party at the last election. But I admit to being slightly conflicted by two arguments. One is that it should be for the government itself to bring forward proposals on a mandatory retirement age, if that's what is planned. The other is that it perhaps it is better for this House to take what action it can, because the government Bill considered by the Commons, might well find itself broadened well beyond the subject matter of this report.

So, on balance, I can see the case for us to take action ourselves where our objectives can be achieved by non-legislative means. But, my Lords, there is a broader context to this debate. It is both about the case for reducing the size of the House and about our relationship with the House of Commons. The other night we listened to my noble friend Lord Rooker make some very persuasive points about the extent to which it increasingly falls to us to scrutinise government legislation, that the same government itself effectively prevents the House of Commons from considering properly by the use of the timetable, motion and the guillotine.

And, meanwhile, efforts in this House to reduce our size, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord. Lord Burns and others have not yet succeeded and cannot succeed, partly because we have no ability effectively to reduce the power of prime ministerial patronage and hence the proposals before us today. Now, I admit to being ambivalent about the retirement age, though I appreciate the committee's suggested phasing in of it over a number of years. Why? Well, it's not just because it jars with the principles of discrimination against people who are older.

And. We live in a country where the population itself is getting older now. Funnily enough, I bumped into a group of schoolchildren today when I was in the house earlier this morning, and I asked them, do you think it's unfair that you should throw people out of Parliament at the age of 80? And amazingly, the vast majority of that group put up their hands and said yes. They thought it was unfair. It's quite interesting. So I am slightly nervous of a fixed retirement age.

It would never be applied to the House of Commons. For this reason, you could never restrict the rights of the electorate to elect whomever they wish to serve in that place. Now, I know that there are many members of this House who are over 80, who make an extraordinary contribution and continue to do so to the work of this House. And a mention was made of Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I was sitting on the benches opposite when he made his final remarks on leaving the house.

He was cogent. He made some very good points. He. He said he'd reached the view that he reassessed certain legislation, even though he'd introduced that legislation decades earlier. And he was 95. My point really is that capacity is perhaps a better guide than mere age to what matters now. By contrast, there are members decades younger than that noble Lord who do not often come. They do not often speak. They do not often vote. In short, they do not often participate.

And in my opinion, this can bring the House into disrepute. That's why I find myself in much greater sympathy with the report's recommendations on participation. However, I entirely understand the reference to the risks of performative activity, but the right balance has to be found to enable the House to fulfil its core functions. Scrutinising legislation, holding the government of the day to account, engaging in committee work and raising issues for debate. And I think the Commission's the report's recommendations are a stage further forward.

I'll end by saying this I'm one of these members who regards this place as a workshop and not a museum, and I consider myself a working peer. And it was on that basis that I stood for election to this House. And I will listen to the rest of the debate with great interest. And in my experience of this place, which goes well beyond the five years. To which I, when I first arrived this month, is that incremental change is usually what works best.
19:26
Lord Blackwell Portrait Lord Blackwell (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, sir, many speakers in >> My Lord, sir, many speakers in this debate, including the noble Lord, Viscount Stansgate, have made Lord, Viscount Stansgate, have made the argument against an age limit, so I won't repeat those arguments other than to say I agree with them. And as I look in particular at some of the long serving peers who sit on the Privy Council benches, it seems to me Parliament will be weaker and much less effective if we lose their experience in institutional memory.

But I would like to spend some time talking about the attendance requirement and that your view on that, I think, depends on what kind of house you believe we should be and what kind of membership we should have. I pay tribute to those peers who are regular attenders here almost every day, whose main activity is the legislation passing through this House. The House needs those members. We depend on them to get the business done, and they are true public service.

But I also believe the House benefits tremendously from those more part time peers whose main career is outside of politics, and bring the expertise and wider experience of that parallel experience into Parliament. The value of contribution to this House is not just measured by the frequency of attendance and speaking, it's also the quality of the contributions. And while the primary function of the house is detailed, scrutiny of legislation, I think the House also has an important constitutional role as an ultimate backstop against government on major issues, and having a wider group of peers who aren't necessarily here every day, but will come in and vote and listen and attend on those major issues actually is another strength of the House.

And on that basis, I believe the threshold of 20% has been suggested. While it might seem reasonable, when you think about it, if it's going to be meaningful, attendance of a day or week is too limiting for those who are maintaining an active career outside of Parliament. Yeah, my Lords, I would not want to hold myself up as any kind of role model. And I've now retired from active commercial activity. But my experience of the changing scope for participation through my career, I suspect, is representative of many others.

I joined this house almost 30 years ago and like many others, had a background of a mixed career in business and in policy development across Whitehall. When I arrived, I was in full time employment in a corporate role, but I made arrangements to attend when I felt I could contribute. But I had the advantage of working and living in London. If I worked and lived elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I would have found it very difficult. Even on a passing 15 minute tick the box exercise to be in the house one day in five every week.

I then moved on and I had a period as a non-executive director with a portfolio career that gave me much more capacity to be involved over a period of years. But then I moved on to another role where I was chairman of a major UK bank for over seven years, and that during that period, that activity naturally took primacy. So I think that kind of experience over a period of years is typical of many members of this House who have maintained an active role in a profession or career outside the bank, whether it's in law or medicine or teaching or any other activity which requires them to keep an active role that doesn't necessarily enable them to spend one day every week, on average, participating in the house.

But nevertheless, when they do come, have experience and expertise to bring. And I think the House benefits from that experience and wider engagement. And I understand there is demand for some kind of participation requirement. But if that is required, I would just urge the House and the Minister to consider whether a lower threshold would be would be more acceptable in terms of keeping those members of the House who can contribute in that way. For example, 10% once a fortnight, I think would be a much more reasonable but still implied people were actively involved.

So, my Lords, I just urge the House and Minister just to think again about that threshold required to ensure we don't exclude people who can make a major contribution.
19:32
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
Well, sir, it's a pleasure to follow Lord Blackwell, my old foe, follow Lord Blackwell, my old foe, and a pleasure to congratulate Baroness Taylor of Bolton on her excellent report and her feet in excellent report and her feet in securing unanimous agreement on it. And some of the speeches today have And some of the speeches today have shown us what a feat that was. I thought I detected what Private eye calls a reverse ferret, but I may be wrong about that. The.

I'm certainly a bit baffled by the disingenuous claims that it's not clear what problem the government and the committee are trying to solve. My Lords, we know it's to how to bring in new blood without having the place get absurdly large and clearly, given the manifesto commitment, it's going to be a retirement age. And I think that the talk of expulsion is, with all due respect to the noble Lord. Lord. True, a little overblown. I myself would have preferred a fixed term or a combination of the two of them.

Not for any personal reasons. I'd be caught either way. I came here in 2004, shortly after my expulsion from the Foreign Office, and I. As for age, well, I prefer just to say that I was expelled from my prime well before D-Day. Party. Lord. True it happens. It's called aging. But I hope the reports case for gradualism is bought by the government and the other place, because the cliff edge point seems to me a very real one, particularly for us crossbenchers.

We're the oldest group here, and 60% of us would be over a 2029 edge edge lemming like all in one go on participation. I go for a criterion of attendance rather than verbosity. They also serve who only think and vote. But the minimum requirement shouldn't be set too low. We are sent here primarily to legislate, and we should be ready to commit the necessary time, as many. Alas, now don't. Policy needs to be able to check that in advance as well as propriety.

And for all people coming here, our active membership is only about half our nominal membership, as some have pointed out. But that seems to me to be bad news rather than good. It certainly isn't very good for our image, and we're doing nothing to bring down overall numbers. I naively thought the departure of our hereditary friends would produce a big fall, but it hasn't. Leaving aside those on leave of absence, there were 827 of us this day last year.

Today there are 797, a fall of 30. But it's rapidly being reduced as new peers flock in a fall of only 30. Yes, there are fewer conservatives, but only 38 fewer still the largest group. And of course, there are many fewer crossbenchers that endangered species. We're down by much more proportionately than are the Conservative Party. But there are more Labour peers, of course. More Lib Dem peers, more non-aligned peers than even are more bishops than there were a year ago.

Of course, we all know about the post-election ratchet effect. I think that's ratchet, not racket. I'm not entirely sure, but it would be good to remind the three great parties so busy rewarding their friends that Lord Burns's 2017 report convinced us all that 600, not 800, would be about the right size, and that until we got there, a two out for one in rule would be right. We voted for that. To her credit, Baroness May respected it as Prime Minister, but no other subsequent Prime Minister has done so, and it's high time they did.
19:37
Baroness Seccombe Portrait Baroness Seccombe (Conservative)
-
-
I don't want I want to add my >> I don't want I want to add my thanks to Lady Taylor of Bolton for the many months that she and her committee wrestled with this matter, committee wrestled with this matter, but I just cannot accept the report. I feel strongly that some peers do not consider all the relevant issues before accepting a peerage. The first thing I did was to find out my husband's views. He had had a stroke and I knew his life would change if I was away most of the week.

He was of course, delighted for me and we worked together on how we would make it work. I know others who reorganise their arrangements before entering the house, planning their future, knowing that they would be here for life or when they wished to retire. Now they face an about turn, which could have many ramifications. While those who enter early in their 30s and 40s would have the privilege of spending tens of years of service in the house. While I hate retrospective legislation, and I think this proposal would be a mistake, and with it, the world in such a topsy turvy state, it would be wise to go into the next election with all the stability we could muster.

My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady. I rise to speak very much in support of this report and to congratulate my noble friend, like so many other people have already. I do so with the privilege of having been in this House 27 years and really appreciating enormously the vast range of expertise and experience in this House. But I have always thought that there should be, as a matter of course, a retirement age, not as an expulsion, but as a matter of course.

And I'm grateful now that we have the responsibility ourselves as a self-regulating house, to decide if we take the opportunity, what is best for the House as a whole in the future. And I'm therefore very impressed by the work of the
19:39
Baroness Andrews Portrait Baroness Andrews (Labour)
-
-
committee and for the careful and very inclusive way that it listened very inclusive way that it listened to so many opposing passionate views. And we've heard many around the House tonight, but they still the House tonight, but they still agreed on what I think was a fair and practical solution. And we have and practical solution. And we have to consider context. My Lords, the committee has done its work in very heavy weather. Democratic politics heavy weather. Democratic politics can no longer be taken for granted, much as we cannot expect this House to survive without radical intervention.

The rule of law, as we've debated in this House recently, is under siege. The guardianship of the Constitution is at issue. It is all the more important that Parliament retains respect and is truly effective and fit for purpose. The House cannot be defended against change, but a retirement age creates the opportunity to think not just about the size and composition of the house, but also what it needs to match the huge demands on it in the future, not least the changing nature of expertise, as well as perpetual questions about credibility and dignity.

As members of the House grow older and more frail, capacity varies enormously. We know that. I accept, and I'm grateful for the phasing of retirement between 80 and 85, just as I am grateful that the ludicrous notion of a mass exit at any point, with all its perverse and undignified consequences, was put down. I'm also relieved that the idea of a participation bar was rejected. There is no fair way of doing this, my Lords. Given the present size of the House and the way we frankly do not make full use of our current expertise, and part of its participation would have been bizarre as well as impossible to enforce.

Much better to have attendance as a standard. So the committee avoided the two huge bear traps. But it has come to the difficult but rational conclusion that age has to be a factor in the future. And I agree with that. Just as I agree that our older members have a unique and impartial wisdom and invaluable institutional memory, even if, my Lords, if that institutional memory is really called upon. But it is an aide memoire for what can go wrong, alongside all the missed opportunities that might still be there.

And it covers not just revision of legislation and scrutiny, but how we manage the House and our relationships within the House. But there is no doubt, my Lords, that institutional memory can also have a chilling effect on change. We are past masters in this House of arguing the case for unripe time. We have to be brave, my Lord, in recognising the need that the time is ripe. Judgment may improve in ways with age, but I do not think that the other value we hold close our expertise is of equal measure, and I speak from experience.

Knowledge has never moved faster, nor has raised such hard, ethical or existential questions. We must look for the scope for a continual renewal of knowledge in this House. Whether it's the regulation of AI, hard choices over scarce resources, or providing what young people need for a very different future. And I agree, we must look at the way that people, noble Lords, come into this House. And that brings me to the size of the house. I do not think that there is any one right size, nor can we predict the future size of this house, but it should be a smaller and nimbler house.

But we only achieve that if we have the courage to radically think hard about how we do legislation and how we do scrutiny. Indeed, we do not have to wait to do that. I think the House is already too large to be effective in many respects. Finally, I profoundly believe that the House has a duty of care to older members, and at the moment it final book, The Fixed Period, he foresees a future British colony, a young unicameral parliament decides that the national lifespan should be 67 to improve productivity.

The only recompense is that at age 66, in the final year, citizens will be provided with all their hearts desires. My Lords, his prescription goes even further than the Labour Party manifesto and I am not recommending it, but I do think that I should certainly be taking advantage of what that last year holds. And finally, and most important, let us, for goodness sake, decide for ourselves what is best and embed that decision within the practices and the principles of this House.

We do not need legislation to bring change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It's a pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow embarrassed Andrew's. My Lords, it's also worth reflecting on Iain Duncan Dunn's comments on how Westminster works and why it doesn't quote. There is a place doesn't quote. There is a place with a proud record of standing up to government. It works diligently and thanklessly to improve and thanklessly to improve legislation. It applies expertise to policy. It seeks consensus. It
19:44
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
is independent minded and rejects partisan point scoring. It acts partisan point scoring. It acts with a seriousness that is absent almost anywhere else in the political system. It is the House political system. It is the House of Lords. Participation requirements would enhance that requirements would enhance that contribution. This is a job, not a status. We are legislators, so status. We are legislators, so voting should count. However, as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Ideas become refined by being together, listening to and disagreeing courteously with each other.

Prospective members should be informed before their appointment is finalised. What sustained contribution to this house entails and is expected from day one, requiring retirement, would, however, threaten what Dunt admires. The 2024 Labour manifesto said Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. It is peculiarly ageist to have a cut off point at 80, when many octogenarians are contributing very substantially, and some younger peers, often by virtue of other significant responsibilities, are not declaring an interest.

I, like many others, if this were report were implemented, I would be retiring in 2029. For me, declining cognitive and possibly physical ability might require retirement at some point, but not age. Whilst I can contribute to society through my work here, I think I should. To him who has been given much, much will be expected. As an aside, as an aside, it is assumed that noble Lords, leaning on the red benches with their eyes closed, are asleep. When we have actually our ears to the speakers in the rosettes and are concentrating hard.

Perhaps it's the sound system that is archaic and needs retiring, not those using it. We are a self-regulating house like Baroness Hollins. I have concerns about declining cognitive abilities that should be dealt with sensitively by party whips or others with seniority, who might ask trusted colleagues to initiate difficult conversations. They could encourage reduced participation, suggest retirement, or even agree that a peer will not speak. There is already subtle pressure in this House not to outstay one's welcome. I hope someone would take me to one side if needed.

I've seen this work. Someone with a remarkable work history and a strong track record of contribution here began to show effects of dementia. A peer they trusted gently suggested they lay down their responsibilities and they did. Any peer might need this. 5 to 7% of dementia sufferers in the UK are below 65. To reiterate, it is simply ageist to tie ability to age. But more importantly, we are here to serve the country, not ourselves. Firing the over 80s disenfranchises, the many octogenarians, nonagenarians and centenarians, centenarians still contributing enormously in our society.

The rigours of the Second World War are still in their hearts and bones. Their perspective is invaluable, and a nation that forgets its past is in danger of repeating its mistakes. David Attenborough is 100. The late Queen died at 96, but there are many older men and women in more ordinary walks of life still contribute enormously. One of the four centenarians in this year's honours list received the BEM, indicating remarkable community service. I appreciate the committee's of efforts to smooth the transition for existing peers, so retirement is not suddenly forced upon them, and the House is not suddenly bereft of subject expertise and experience.

But even with the committee's more gradualist plans, we've heard almost 60% of crossbenchers would be gone by 234. I will end with Dylan Thomas. I think Lord true started with Dylan Thomas. We should not go gentle into that good night of auto retirement. For those of us still in command of our faculties. Still up for the job. Old air, old age should burn. Maybe not rave, but it should burn until close of day.
19:49
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Portrait Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, it's a pleasure to >> My Lords, it's a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I want to thank the Retirement and Participation Committee, in particular Baroness Taylor of Bolton, as chair, for such a well constructed report, which I believe constructed report, which I believe makes sound suggestions for the continued reform of the House following the legislation associated with hereditary members. I spoke in support of the Burns report, which recommended fixed terms of 15 years, but acknowledged that this issue was not widely accepted at the time.

The report before us today acknowledges that some members find fixed terms and attractive proposition. However, the committee concluded that the potential benefits of fixed term appointments were outweighed by the potential disadvantages and that this may deter younger members from joining the House. The House is not reflective of our population in terms of generalization, in terms of generational representation, rural and ethnic diversity, and in the longer term, I suggest it will be necessary to return to that issue about whether fixed term appointments, particularly for new appointments, say, of 20 or 25 years, would be effective in not only containing the size of the house, but resulting in a more multi-generational representation within our body.

I'm particularly impressed by the ingenuity of appendix four, which explains in plain English how transitional arrangements would work in practice regarding a retirement age of 80. If accepted, the recommendations would provide certainty to all our members in term of their own anticipated retirement date, and I would be one of the first to go on the dot of 80. Actually, the committee members demonstrate that how they will be affected in table one, illustrating their personal commitments to the Nolan principles of public life.

It is an honour and a privilege to attend this House and committee members presenting this report acknowledged this while recommending a solution that will affect us all, including themselves, that is consistent with upholding integrity, selfishness and leadership as they apply to appointed public office holders. I came here through Appointments Commission when the chair was Lord Kakkar as a people's Peer, based largely on my expertise in nursing in the four countries of the UK, there are currently 500,000 nurses on the professional register, probably a little more.

Do you not think it would be arrogant of me to say that at least we could find suitable replacements to replace my expertise as I approach the age of 80 with certainty on my retirement date, subject to not succumbing to illness and early retirement, the nursing profession would undoubtedly plan to work with me to identify a range of excellent potential replacements to apply to the Appointments Commission. I'm certain that similar potential successful succession plans could occur across the House, resulting in excellent new appointments, bringing contemporary knowledge and experience to inform the House.

I do, like others, get concerned about the size of the crossbench. With the recent deaths of the noble Lord Laming, and a little while ago, the noble Lady Baroness Howarth. We are for, in my opinion, very short of social work, practice and knowledge, and particularly in child protection, these are the issues we should be looking at. I I'm fully supportive of the recommendations and want to thank the Committee members again for a carefully considered review of evidence and their manifesto commitment to introduce a retirement age.

The recommendations will protect some of our youngest members who have given up other career opportunities, understanding that their appointments would be for life. Reducing this to 80 seems a fair approach for younger members, too. As Baroness Smith said earlier, it also avoids the necessity to consider the introduction of an occupational health assessment at a predetermined age, in line with other professions, to ensure competency and safety in the workplace. I also want to express my support for the idea of an emeritus association, and I live five hours away, but I would be happy to pay my fare if I wanted to come up and meet a group of friends, as I do on other occasions with other members.

I finally want to say that I think watching The Last Night of the Proms, there was a new definition of AI, and that was that. Dolly Parton had always had authentic integrity. I challenge us as a body to display a similar approach to this particularly important report.
19:54
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
The most important words in the report of the Select committee are report of the Select committee are not in the conclusions, but in the opening summary. We are bound by opening summary. We are bound by our remit as the noble Baroness, Baroness Finlay, said earlier, form Baroness Finlay, said earlier, form should follow function. The government have focused on form that has tied the hands of the committee. Good law is a public good that must be front and centre in addressing what this place is for.

This house is core to ensuring that bills brought forward by government are as good as they can be to deliver what the measure seeks to achieve. That is a task that, if not fulfilled by this House, it's not going to be carried out at all. An arbitrary age limit will remove some members who contribute significantly to legislative scrutiny, bringing to bear experience that is exclusive to them while retaining members who make no significant contribution. Expecting members to attend for a certain percentage of sittings may remove some who are not making much of a contribution.

But again, it's a blunt weapon. It is not sufficiently calibrated to deliver the core task of the House. It would make more sense to have more sophisticated participation criteria, focusing on quality rather than quantity. If we go for targeted qualitative participation, as recommended by the campaign for Effective Second Chamber, we we achieve both a reduction in numbers and enhance the meaningful participation of members. The Select Committee has come up with formulas we've heard for retirement and participation that could be delivered by the House.

There's an obvious. A principled objection to that, namely, that it should not be for the House to use its procedures to deliver government policy. We've heard the argument that implementing the committee's recommendations means that we are in control of what happens, but that's akin to a kidnapper letting the victims tie their own hands. If the government introduced legislation that will provide us with the opportunity to use the bill to deal with the problem that is not within the committee's remit, but is addressed by the Labour Party's manifesto.

Any reform focused on composition must address how members come here and not in isolation, how they leave. Simply removing members at a certain age creates the opportunities that we've heard for the Prime Minister to fill the House with new nominees. That is open to criticism from the perspective of sheer size. Much more importantly, it is objectionable if those nominated do not have the skills and commitment necessary to contribute to the work of this House, especially the core task of legislative scrutiny, we need workhorses, not grandstanders or theatre goers.

My Lords, a Constitution Unit survey some years ago found that the public rank trust in the appointments process as the most important factor in determining the legitimacy of this House. We should be driven by what is the best interest, not of the House but of the nation, in delivering good law. I have three questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, does she agree that form should follow function? Second, does she recognise that the public attach more importance to the process by which peers are appointed than to how they leave? And third, given that, can she tell us what the government will do to implement their manifesto commitment to reform the process by which people are nominated for peerages? Because that, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is the most pressing issue. It's a very great pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and in so doing, of course, join other noble Lords in thanking Baroness Taylor of Bolton for the very thoughtful way in which she's introduced this important report and indeed the work of her Committee. I'd like to work of her Committee. I'd like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton, by building on the question of appointments, and here I declare a former interest as chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

What is very clear in the proposals that your Lordships are considering today is that on the 8th of July 2029, there could be as many as 135 vacancies created. And we've seen in recent experience that within the first two years of administration, some 50% of all peers appointed by a Prime Minister. Appointments are made in that first two year period. So there might well be a substantial temptation and indeed perceived opportunity for a new Prime Minister to make substantial appointments to your Lordships House.

And, of course, the point has been well made that this will impact in terms of achieving the objective of reducing the size of size of your Lordships House, and indeed may also have important implications with regard to the effectiveness of the scrutiny that your Lordships House can deliver. But there is another more important, I believe, fundamental constitutional risk, jeopardy associated with continuing to provide the opportunity unfettered for more and more appointments to your Lordships House.

And this rests upon the 1911 Parliament Act and indeed, clause two, one of that act which reserves for your Lordships House a unique veto over measures passed by the other place, and that is a retained veto to prevent the other place from passing a measure that would extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years. It's the only clearly retained veto that your Lordships House retains. The importance of this matter was considered in a case by your Lordships Appellate Committee at the time.

The case of Jackson versus the Attorney General, where the question of whether the Parliament Act procedure could be used to force the House of Lords. Despite that restriction, the 1911 act to adopt or to ensure that a measure could be passed to extend the life of Parliament beyond five years without consent of your Lordships House and at that time by a majority. Your Lordships Appellate Committee decided that that measure could not be applied to overcome the restriction in the 1911 act.

So the only way that a Prime Minister having a majority in the other place could proceed with extending the life of a Parliament beyond five years, would be to ensure an effective majority in your Lordships House, and therefore the independence of your Lordships House is absolutely critical. Now, it could be argued that that could have happened at any time since the passage of the 1958 Life Peerages Act, but we are now in a process of continuously changing the composition of this house, and in particular, the way and the number of peers that might leave this House at any given time.

And therefore, it must be a real concern that we take ourselves to a position where ultimately there could be an effective majority in your Lordships House, matching the majority in the other place, and that the government that decided to do so could pass a measure to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years, and in so doing, deny the electorate the opportunity to give their view on the performance and behaviour of that government, potentially for an indefinite period.

It might be argued that the courts Could intervene at that stage and protect democracy. The problem is that the article nine of the 1689 Bill of rights would ultimately potentially prevent that from happening, because the measure had been passed on the proper bicameral procedure. I'd like to ask the noble Lady leader, in considering all of the measures which are very carefully laid out in the report, led by Baroness Taylor of Bolton, how are constitutional safeguards going to be maintained so that we don't find ourselves in a position, ultimately where an effective majority might be secured in your Lordships House in such a way that the government might proceed, as I have described.

My Lords, my.
20:04
None Portrait 5 Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-

Noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, got to the nub of the question when he asked, what is this all for? The answer, I suggest, is, at least in part, as a result of a certain squeamishness, cognitive decay is cruel. Age, as we all know, affects all of us unequally. This retirement proposal is not just about reducing the numbers in this House. At its heart, it seeks to remove those who might. In the colourful words of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, have lost their marbles.

The retirement age of 80 is really a measure to avoid a hard conversation. Now, while I approve of avoiding awkward conversations, the cost, I suggest, my Lords, is too high. The loss of expertise and experience would gravely damage the work of this House. Therefore, would not a capacity test be a better measure and avoid us and allow us to avoid an arbitrary deadline? At the age of 80? Consideration has been hinted at in other speeches from noble Lords this evening, and no doubt the conduct of such a test, following the measures that were permitted by this House to be added to the Hereditary Peers Bill, could allow tests of capacity to be conducted with humanity and kindness by the House authorities and, dare I say it, by the whips.

This, I suggest, is an answer that warrants careful consideration. One last point, if I may. A bugbear of mine. There can be no such thing as a peer emeritus. We have no monopoly on the title, Lord. There have been since at least the act of Union of 1707. Two categories of peers, parliamentary peers and non parliamentary peers from 1707 to 1963, the Scottish peerage elected from among themselves 16 to attend this House. The rest of those Scottish peers were non-parliamentary.

Similarly, from 1801, only 28 of the Irish peerage were sent here to serve in this house. The rest were Non-parliamentary peers. Now, as a result of the iniquitous legislation, as I see it passed by the government, all hereditary peers are now Non-parliamentary peers, unless, of course, they have the good fortune also to hold a life peerage. That category of non-parliamentary peers now includes all life peers who have retired from this House under the provisions of the 2014 act, and therefore, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the Lord Privy Seal is entirely right.

As is often the case when she says that those who are not members of this House are entitled to vote, and they are still entitled to use the title that they have been given by the Crown in accordance with their letters. Patent as is right and proper, and has been the case, as I say, for many centuries, especially

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if they're still on the roll of the peerage. Why not? I'm grateful. And just I think I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. And just I think I might be correct, but I'm sure the Lord will correct me. The Scottish Lords of Parliament, who were part Lords of Parliament, who were part of those elected to serve after the Act of Union, had themselves had to be re-elected at the start of each be re-elected at the start of each new Parliament. So they indeed didn't have a lifetime right to serve in Parliament, as he suggested.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggested. Yes. Thank you. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. And there's a curious quirk that the Irish elected peers were elected for life, not just the Parliament, but that's the joy of our glorious Constitution. As I would say, though. It's right that this House is considering the issue of whether or not a member should be compelled to carry on serving once they are past their prime, if I might put it like that. The answer is not a hard age bar.

The answer is more humane.
20:09
Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. Well done sir. participation their Lordship managed to achieve when we're discussing our own future. My Lords, I better declare an interest. I have been here for nearly 30 years and I am over 80. I used at one time prior to coming to this house to have some influence over Labour Party manifestos. Regrettably, that no longer is the case, and I was slightly bemused that the Labour Party seemed to consider in writing their manifesto that the most important thing that was wrong with the House of Lords was that there were far too many old codgers like me left in it.

Now that whilst that may be a criticism, it may be a public impression, not entirely, not entirely erroneous, but nevertheless there are much more fundamental things that the government could have addressed. But nevertheless they didn't. They put this in their manifesto, and the responsibility in the House of Lords is to carry out a manifesto according to the Salisbury Convention, just as it will with any other piece of potential change that was clearly endorsed in in the manifest in by the election of the government based on that manifesto.

I therefore think that my noble friend Baroness Taylor has done a very good, useful report in spelling out the problems and how we should go with it. I think we should go with it now. I think we should do so in terms of a House of Lords resolution which could fulfill that requirement on the House of Lords, and we can then have the subsequent arguments later, because, my Lords, there are a lot of things wrong with the House of Lords and the question of how appointments are made by the House, by successive governments to the House of Lords, and the numbers in the House of Lords, and in the different groups in the House of Lords, which will be not resolved by retirement age or shortly thereafter.

I had intended, shortly after. My 30 years are up, sometime in the next year, to retire. That gives me a little bit more time in these propositions, but I will. I will consider the noble Baroness recommendations and the government's position. But the argument on actual membership of the House of Lords will go on. It will go on for two very good reasons. The main role, this noble friend, Lord Rooker, has been underlying over recent weeks very effectively, is that this is a revising house, it's a scrutinising house, and there has been a failure in the elected House to carry out their scrutiny functions effectively in a way which we need to remedy.

But to remedy that, we have to have some authority and some recognition of that authority ourselves. That requires us to be a little bit more representative of the general population than we are now. And the other big political development over the years since I have been here has been we have become a quasi federal state. And in view of the present Prime Minister's dedication to greater devolution within England, we're going to become more so. Most jurisdictions which have an upper chamber.

The second chamber is based directly or indirectly on the lower regional or in our case, national or regional parts of the United Kingdom. We must move, whether it's by election or by some other process. We must move to a more representative membership of this House of Lords. Geographically speaking, as well as by age, by gender and everything else. So, my Lords, I think we need to postpone that argument for tonight, but we'll fairly rapidly need to get into it.

And the government are going to have to face up to the fact that this proposition, which will remove a a coterie of old codgers like myself from the House of Lords over the next few years, needs to be replaced by a much more coherent approach to both the appointment system and to the retirement system from this House. These retirements of for people of over 80 are not going to do anything about the numbers or about the balance of the House of Lords.

So we need another stage in order to do that. So I hope, my Lords, this is a beginning of that debate. But let's focus tonight. And when we come to take our decision on what we are required to do under the Salisbury Convention, under the proposition from the government, and adopt the proposition from my noble friend, which makes it for real, and move to a situation which the government have put to us, and I hope we can do that without wider legislation and without the involvement, therefore, of the House of Commons, or indeed anybody else.
20:14
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. First, I'd like to thank my noble friend Lord true for thank my noble friend Lord true for his comments. I'd like to take you back to the early 70s, 69, 1970. I think most of us in this House, not all, can probably remember those times fairly clearly. So it's we have two state airlines, state owned airlines, BEA and Boac, the state owned. It's a closed shop. If you want to join that company. And the trade union representatives are all male.

The cabin crew are a mixture, but only the male cabin crew have what's called really a full time contract in terms of a career type contract. I joined BEA and this is my contract. This is memorabilia. We had no seniority. We had no promotion to be Pursers. And one of the key aspects of my employment contract was that there was an age limit. You had to leave by the time you were either 36 or after ten years.

And if you did leave between the the after serving 5 or 10 years, you'd get After five years and £600 after the full term. You got an extra £150. So the reality was, of course, it was age discrimination. I just have to pick up my speech. Sorry about that. It was age discrimination. The employer I joined, I was absolutely excited. The employer was absolutely open to to changing the contract. But it was actually my colleagues, the Transport and General Workers Union shop stewards, who were wholly opposed to the female, the female, the stewardesses having their contract, an equalising contract.

This resulted in my being elected as a one of the first female shop stewards in BEA. It wasn't something I planned, but it was something that happened and I rather enjoyed industrial relations and spent quite a few years actually being involved in industrial relations, years after two. So by today's standards, this was not only sexist, but it was ages. So we did change the rules and our terms and conditions were equalised. And the rest is history. So if we fast forward to today, five years ago, I was appointed to this House.

I didn't have a contract, but I did have my letters patent from Her Majesty the Queen, which meant I'd be here until I died or I decided to retire. But within two years, well, just within two years of a Labour government from 2024, they've now dispatched our hereditary peers because of who their fathers were, despite the fact there were diminishing number of colleagues in this House. And I did not agree with that. Now we wish to impose an age limit on members, including possibly looking at taking retrospective action on those who are already sitting in this House.

And so, notwithstanding that the government benches or the Prime Minister appointed two Labour peers to this House, who very recently in last year, who were 81, which I find quite interesting. Which brings me to my conclusion. As been clearly pointed out by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, that we were appointed, and we should be able to remain in this House as long as we choose to, and as long as we contribute to this House. Because to do otherwise is basically based on age.

If basically based on age is simply age discrimination. So here I am at the end of my career, yet again in the hands, it appears, of the left or a Labour government who purport to stand against discrimination but have no compunction in carrying it out on the age on on, on, on, on the age of the members of this House.
20:19
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
First to thank the right >> First to thank the right Reverend prelate for his very kind words. Totally undeserved, but very kind. I very much support this report and its recommendations as we have a manifesto commitment. It seems to me extremely difficult to go behind it. And I am well over the age of 80. So the proposed staggering of the exits of over 80s seems to me entirely sensible, and others will have to work out what happens to the loss of crossbenchers.

I hope that the Leader of the House will bear in mind how diminished we're going to be. It will, of course, affect a number of people coming in late, as the last speaker pointed out. We had two Labour peers coming in over the age of 80 very recently. And it will affect, particularly the judiciary, who come in any time over 70 and many at 75, which is the retiring age. And as has already been said, many of the Judiciary Chair committees and have a useful function in this House.

And we are very short of judicial peers at this moment. I think the consequence of this, the idea that we don't have to leave, which is perfectly true. Quite clearly Lord Wolfson is right. But I feel that if we're not wanted, we ought to go. I fear that's what I'm much more concerned about. Participation, peerage. The peerage, it seems to me, is the gateway for working in this house. And one. And I think that we really ought to consider whether there should be two sorts of peers, quite apart from the peers who don't sit here anyway.

The first should, as it happened to me, I happen to have come through Hurlock, and the only question I was asked was, if you get it, will you turn up? To which I said yes. And so I do today. But I do believe, and I did speak to the Leader of the House some years ago, that there should be another sort of peer appointed at the head of the honours system, that peer would not sit in this House. It would be an honour.

But any peer who wants who is asked to sit in this house really ought to be required to say, I will not come in unless I'm actually going to work. And I don't know whether that happens today. It certainly happens to Hurlock, but I suspect it doesn't happen through the patronage at number ten. So I would like to see these two sorts of peers. And I just wonder whether there's any chance that might come over. I do believe that a degree of self denial by Prime Ministers would help enormously to reduce the House of, and would be much preferable to the present system.

And I have to say, I was very disturbed, and remain so by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. I think that should be reflected by this House, and possibly discussed again at number ten. I final thing I want to say is I would oppose legislation. I think this House has got to work it out. If we have legislation, it will open the gates in the House of Commons and we don't know what might happen. It could be extremely dangerous for this House.
20:23
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Portrait Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, sir. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton and her committee for this report. And I declare my calendrical interest as set out in the register. Some of this report is welcome, though I regret that the Committee were unable to also examine the admission system, which is clearly integral to any changes. Reducing the size of the house that might follow the paragraph 115. The committee says that some members do not contribute, and this damages the reputation of the House.

That's perfectly true and has been for years. The committee proposes a requirement of 20% of sitting days, averaged over two sessions with expulsion for those who fall short. I welcome a requirement in principle that further scrutiny is required as to whether the figure. The committee has arrived at strikes the right balance. It should remove those who have in practice stopped coming without removing members who may be here a dozen or so times a session, but who do good work when they are here, contributing their particular expertise on age, I am afraid I disagree.

The main work of this House is going through bills line by line, and we do it well because so many members here have run departments or businesses, sat as judges or served in the forces. So. So they know where a bill might be deficient and need improvement. Right now, the other place is younger and less experienced than at any time I can remember, and a great many of its members only started in 2024. A consequence of this is that more work has come our way in the past two years.

It is a strange moment, my Lords, to part with 367 of our most experienced colleagues, which is what the committee says it expects between 2029 and 2034. Our current oath on assuming service, as far as I am concerned, commits us to the service that service for our lives, and I take that personally as a primary obligation. We are not salaried in this House and we receive no pension. Paragraph 19 acknowledges as such, and that younger members are often mid-career, with families to support.

Paragraph 102 notes that they naturally come to have real time for this House. Only once those pressures ease, the members. This report would send away on our expiry date are often the very ones who are here every day and would go on doing their duty to this House and to the country for years to come. The workload they bear will not disappear, but will ultimately pass to colleagues who, as the committee has just explained, have the least time for it, and the House must be the poorer for that.

Anyway, the premise of a retirement age is that our capacity falls away at a certain age. Well, it clearly does. Not a week ago or so, or just over a week ago at the Royal Albert Hall. Martha Argerich played Beethoven's Second Piano Concerto 60 years, almost to the day after her Proms debut in 1966. She played it perfectly, almost as well as Alfred Brendel. She fully returns, expects to return next year to perform again. Her rendition received a 12 minute standing ovation.

She is 85 years old. Sir Roger Penrose was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics at 89. He turned 95 last month and was further honoured and entertained at Oxford a couple of weeks ago. Margaret Atwood published 600 pages of memoirs at the age of 86 to the best reviews of her career. Johanna Quast competed as a gymnast until she was 92 and was still giving demonstrations to younger people at the age of 100. Nobody told any of them that their age has settled the question of their usefulness.

I was my Lord's going to mention also sir Tom Jones, but sadly, like the Labour Party, the BBC appears to be somewhat ageist in its approach. Age is a crude measure of capacity for the job, and I believe the committee knew it. Agem has. Ageism has no place in this 21st century. Britain, and especially in this House. So I would finally ask that a well thought through participation requirement might indeed achieve everything necessary. And and and and the ambitions of the Labour Party without this unacceptable and totally prejudiced provision.
20:28
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Amen. >> An education we've had tonight across such a broad range of topics and ages. My my remarks may fall short in that regard, but during the thankfully now concluded debate on the hereditary presence in this House, I put down an amendment which, in line with the government's wider manifesto commitments, proposed that a group be established shortly after the passing of the Bill to address ongoing membership criteria, in particular the issue of participation. And this was widely supported. I was therefore very grateful when the committee that produced this excellent report was promptly brought into being.

And I congratulate in particular, the noble Baroness Taylor, who, perhaps like a modern Odysseus, has had to navigate a very, very difficult course between the whirlpools of controversy. On one side, the sirens of special pleading and the ever present danger of mutiny, as whatever course they took would impact friends and colleagues in this House. But, my Lords, as the Committee itself highlighted, if these issues are not addressed by this House, something less understanding of the role and workings of this place might be imposed on it by the House of Commons and my Lords, that remains a real risk.

If the report's proposals are not now acted on on the age cap, if I may comment as a mere stripling, while perhaps most of us surely accept, like the noble Baroness Watkins did in her speech, that we are not completely irreplaceable. We all know members who are valuable contributors, with a depth of long term experience and wisdom, that the House would be sad to lose on the basis of age alone. I suggested in my evidence to the committee that age should not be the issue, but rather capacity, perhaps on a medically tested basis.

But my Lords, I have subsequently come to accept that the graduated progress towards an age cap recommended by the report would be less personally intrusive and also give members more clarity and thereby manage expectations. I also would like to suggest, my Lords, that it is a privilege not just to come into this House, but also at the age of 80, to have served well beyond the retirement age in almost any other role. On the negative side, which has been touched on widely, this will have an unbalancing numerical impact on party groups and in particular the Crossbenches and perhaps the noble Baroness.

The Leader of the House, will comment further when winding up on what the government has in mind or its proposals to bring forward on this. One suggestion, perhaps, might be that everybody on the Crossbenches gets three votes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just an idea. On.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On. Settle down, settle down. Settle down, please settle down. Please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On participation. I initially felt that a more detailed approach could be taken with a weighted metric. Across all the diverse forms of participation. We might come back to that in the future come back to that in the future because the participation request is, I'm afraid, in practice an attendance amount. But I now accept the committee's view that this would make things overcomplex at this stage. I cannot resist, however, being intrigued by Lord Hamilton's earlier reference to me and his suggestion for a solution.

I thank him for the previous notice he very courteously gave that he was going to be rude about me, but I would just correct his understanding that actually I was defeated a number of times in by elections before the one in which I was successful. But perhaps I was too shy to tell him about that. My Lords, these changes are, as the report points out, just two elements of possible reform. Prominent among the rest, as many have mentioned, is the ability of Prime Ministers and party leaders to treat peerages as a tool of patronage, something that has been exacerbated recently by a rapid turnover in prime Ministers.

My Lord, my Lords, rather like in the Lord of the rings, the ring of power, once obtained and wielded, becomes very precious, very hard to give up. I believe that, at least for those who accept the existence of an of an appointed rather than elected house, this wielding of patronage is the greatest single issue for reform. And that's reflected in the many comments we've had tonight. Its continuance is in part due to the difficulty in creating an alternative that addresses the Who appoints the appointees test.

But my Lords, while I still hope that the House will grip this, I am straying from the subject of this debate. As regards next steps, my Lords, we have a track record in commissioning reviews, notably the Burns Report and then simply shelving them. I really do hope that we can do better this time. My Lords, we should not let perfect be the enemy of good. Implementing this report's findings will represent definite progress in line with manifesto commitments. In short, I congratulate the committee on the report.

I repeat my hope that we can get it implemented, and I look forward to hearing the winding up comments from the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House.
20:33
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the >> It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I thank the Committee for its thoughtful work Committee for its thoughtful work and its cultural report on the manifesto commitment. The peers retire at 80 and the implications of such a retirement age, and of participation in the functioning of this House. But I echo some of the concerns that have been expressed about the remit to which the committee was made to work, about the appearance of seeming to do a deal to manage the government's manifesto commitment, and thus sidestepping the law.

I am glad my noble friend Lord Wolfson reminded us, that we must obey the law. If changes to be made, I would prefer to have a full piece of legislation which can have an explanatory, minimal consultation, scrutiny and debate. There are reasons for principle to be against the proposed changes. We no longer nationally have a retirement age at which people can be forced to give up a job, except in a few professions, as we've heard today. A formal retirement age constitutes discrimination on account of age, which we should reject as firmly as we reject discrimination on grounds of race or sex.

If someone does not do a job as well, that is a good reason for removing them. They're reaching a certain age is not. Age does not stop. As we've heard today, does not stop people from doing a job well. Often older people, often older people, do a job best. I think this is the case in the complex job we do in the House of Lords, where experience and suggesting are needed. Even if a retirement age is introduced by law for peers, I would suggest that it is combined with a fixed term minimum membership of 15 or 20 years.

These were mentioned in the report as suggestions when it considered fixed term membership in general. This would mean that those who come to the Lords later in life can play their proper role and allow the nation to benefit from their expertise. Like all jobs, membership of this house is a constant learning curve. It takes time for peers to learn about each bill, about each government, about each Parliament and the workings of the House, and to perform them effectively.

And finally, as part of the UK Parliament itself, one of the three constitutional powers, our role is that of a complementary legislative power in scrutinising legislation, revising it to make the laws better, and holding government to account, or asking the other House to think again. We should be wary of changes that undermine the ability of peers to do their work. And our main question in thinking about retirement and participation should be what arrangements best facilitate the work done by the House.

For these reasons, I fear that the recommendations in the report and raise too many concerns, and for us to support it.
20:37
Baroness Bull Portrait Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-
-
I join other noble Lords in >> I join other noble Lords in thanking the Committee and indeed its chair, for taking on the task and for their report, which I. Which I widely. Which I generally welcome. The size of the House was one of three. Rationale for reform in the 2024 manifesto, and I do share the regret that the Committee had no mandate to tackle. What is surely the fundamental problem that any retirement measures we put in place will have limited effect on size, without corresponding measures on the numbers that come in the data since 2024 demonstrate this problem.

When the manifesto described the Lords as too big, there were 785 eligible members. Even with the removal of the hereditary peers, the chamber today is bigger than it was then, and all but two of the new appointments arrived through prime ministerial patronage. I also share concerns about the impact of age based retirement on the balance of the house. The analysis, already mentioned from Professor Meg Russell, suggests that the crossbenchers will indeed be hit hardest, reduced by 61% by 2034 and with no agreed formula for holac appointments, the refreshing of these benches will be dependent on the will of the party in power.

And here history gives little cause for optimism. The last five years have just seen have seen just eight Holac appointees. Does the noble Lady, the Leader of the House, agree that without a step change over the five years ahead, the valuable contribution of these benches will be seriously diminished? But, my Lords, we also need to be mindful of how age based retirement impacts on the skills and the diversity of our membership. I firmly believe this House will only be fully effective if it is fully diverse, and it is without doubt more diverse now than it has ever been.

Yet even with these advances, the combined effect of our procedures, our timetable and the allowance system still force an unhappy trade off between socio economic diversity, age, regional background and attendance. Put simply, anyone who is in early to mid career needing to juggle income generation with family or caring responsibilities had better live within the M25 if they're going to meet participation requirements while simultaneously working enough hours to pay a mortgage, accrue a pension and be home in time to look after their dependents.

And that's before we even consider maternity leave, sick pay or paid parental leave. All statutory rights for most people of working age. The report does acknowledge the impact of a participation requirement on peers in early stage careers, or on those who come from outside the south southeast, but it is silent on this more complex issue of intersectionality. Yet this House needs members who bring a range of overlapping backgrounds, identities and experiences, intersectional representations broadens the range of perspectives that we bring to legislation and to policy.

It enhances the effectiveness of our scrutiny and our oversight. I do fully support a requirement on participation, partly because as a holac appointee like the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, I always understood that fulfilling this role meant turning up and contributing. And partly I support it because non-participation so seriously damages public perception of this house. My point is that we need to face up to the ways in which our processes and practices already create barriers to participation, and then consider the impact of any changes, not just on diversity, but on intersectionality too.

And so, my Lords, I welcome this report in as far as its remit allows it to go. But I end by circling back to the point on which I began. If this house is to play its part in fixing the mechanisms out, we should insist that government plays its part and fixes the mechanisms in.
20:42
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Excellent. Thank the noble Lords who served on the committee, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, lady and. Sorry that's gone. I'm sorry. Taylor of Bolton. Apologies. My Lords participation, I believe, is more important than age. There's certainly no age limit on becoming a member of Parliament, and there are plenty there intending to continue to be an MP after the age of 80. But of course, that is the decision of their electorate. I'll start with a few other things.

The leave of absence. I would like to suggest to the House that it should only really be available for those people who are ill. Those people are still working in diplomatic service or working in the royal household. I don't see why anybody else should have leave of absence at all. If they want to be part of this house, it's the second house. It's got a legislative purpose. They should be here or at least turn up. And if we are not intending to remove leave of absence for those people who choose to not spend their time here at all, then I think that we should apply the full declaration registration of interests just the same as anybody else.

There's no reason why they should be any different, my Lords, in terms of voting. I'm a great believer in voting. Of course I would be. In terms of how many times we have voted in this House in the last in the first session, I think it's fair to say that there are people who have never voted and have never spoken in that first session. There are 16 of those, and half have joined the House since 20 19. 25 peers hadn't voted at all.

89 peers voted fewer than ten times. And so it goes on, and I appreciate that there are several people, particularly crossbenchers. I think this is recognised in paragraph 108. I don't necessarily feel comfortable on voting, but that is why we are here. We're legislators. So I'd like to see a little bit more about participation and requirement on perhaps perhaps a modest number of having to do at least ten votes in a session. My Lords, I was a bit disappointed earlier this year, in March and April, two peers turned up.

Just a few weeks before the House rose, went to prorogation. One peer had served in this house for 20 years, the other for 30 years. They turned up on that day. I'm not sure I've seen them since, just so they could meet that one element there. In terms of the fewer than 20 sitting days, again, the 2426 session on the figures I was given by the House library, 116 people were not here. Were here fewer than 20% of the sitting days for which they are eligible.

I'm not talking about people who arrived in whenever it was March earlier this year. It's about what they were eligible to do. 48 were crossbenchers, 28 conservatives, ten non-affiliated, ten Labour, including a Minister, three Liberal Democrats and indeed 17 bishops. Of those, 28 of those who were over 88 years old, 15 less than 55 years old, and so on. So I guess I'm coming back to why are we here? And I do believe it's more than just giving an opinion, giving an opinion, a select committee.

We could ask people to give that anyway. We can invite them to be a witness. I think it is really about the scrutiny of what is happening with the government and with the legislation and indeed their manifesto that they are trying to deliver. Now, I do respect what has been said that that it's in the manifesto about 80. I do remind people, sorry, noble Lords, that, of course, one Parliament cannot bind its successor. But that's a matter for us, I think, to consider carefully, because I'm conscious that we don't just want to.

However long the war and peace is in manifestos in the future and exactly what our government wants to do or not. I was really struck by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker's speech yesterday. I appreciate it's a repeat of one he'd given earlier, and there is an issue about how much legislation is suddenly going through at Report stage. And I know it's not new, but I genuinely believe it's got worse. I used to be a whip in the Commons and I did some comparisons.

The Commons were taking twice as long to do bills of similar size, and the impact was that actually this House was doing far fewer days than it is doing at the moment. We do have the Lord Privy Seal and the government chief Whip sitting on the Cabinet committee, and I do encourage them to think carefully about how we can get that balance right for future. I appreciate in the first two years, governments want to get their legislation through quickly, but that's the other final point, my Lords.

Governments will continue to appoint people here if they keep losing votes. There's no there's no doubt about that. So I think we need to just be mindful as we move forward on these big changes. And again, I come back to participation is more important than age. It's getting late in the evening. So I've cut. You'll be pleased to hear what I was going to say. I start with the report itself. I was a member of the committee, and I've been quite surprised by some of the comments because on the committee there were four members of the government, four members of the opposition, two members of the Liberal Democrat Party and two members of the crossbenchers of whom I was one.

And the report was agreed, and not only because of the skilful chairmanship of Lady Taylor. Many times this evening it's been said that we're a self-governing house and we all subscribe to that, which is why I think this report is pragmatic, practical, modest, reflective of a manifesto commitment while not accepting. It's not the business of a select committee to implement a manifesto commitment, but softening the edges of that commitment in such a way that we would hope. And I refer to what Lord Grocott said, that we avoid a simplistic law coming from the other place, which we would not welcome.

I think we also need to
20:48
Baroness Manningham-Buller Portrait Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
-
-
listen to ourselves. I have to say, listen to ourselves. I have to say, I find it arrogant to assume that major damage will be caused by the major damage will be caused by the gradual retirement, and I use that word deliberately of current word deliberately of current members. What price? Recent experience. Fresh generational experience. Fresh generational perspectives, employment recently experienced in cyber. In AI, in younger perspectives. Of course, it'll be a sad loss to say goodbye to some of our members as it was to say goodbye to our many of our hereditary friends.

We like them, they contributed in most cases, and we miss them. But here I'm going to quote Dylan Thomas again, like Lord did, in which he equated death with leaving the house. There's a further quotation from that poem which goes like this. Wise men at their end know dark is right. Three things I'd like to mention which were not in the remit. Inevitably the. Of the Committee. Inevitably, the House would have liked us in different ways to do things we weren't asked to do.

Very briefly, the first, which lots of people have mentioned, is how people arrive here. What Lord Burns recommended one in for two out, about 600 still looks appealing. Secondly, policy please can the shackles be removed so it can go back to a few more people than two? Thirdly, from my recollection of the committee, it wasn't about capacity, it was about retirement age. We talked about capacity. And at one stage we had a draft paragraph. But given that the House authorities themselves are addressing the issue, we didn't perceive it.

I hope the House will approve the principle of this report, and I recommend it.
20:50
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. Very good. Good. My Lords, I was new then, but I'm reminded of the March 2024 debate in the Moses Room on veterinary in the Moses Room on veterinary medicine regulations, which was going nowhere until a crossbench Baroness told us she was a retired president of the Royal Society of Veterinary Surgeons. She proposed a course of action. And of course we did that. My Lords, that noble Lady only needed to come once in that session and she would have earned her corn, because participation in and of itself isn't the point of this house.

Nor, as the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor said, is attendance. But we must recognise that not all participation is equal. Now, I don't come from that far away. I come from Norfolk, but it's just impractical to commute daily when a debate can keep you late. And then you've got to get to Liverpool Street on the Circle Line is it's crazy. So my wife and I, we bought somewhere near and handy to help me attend regularly, but for plenty of others, this proposal is at risk of reinforcing the already overweight proportion of peers from London and the South East over those who live in the sticks and other far flung places.

You see, there's a world of difference between nipping in on the district line from Fulham and making the slog from York, Norfolk, Penzance, Edinburgh or particularly Northern Ireland, because minimum attendance quotas work against the richness this House gains from the devolved nations within our United Kingdom. I thought we had a Prime Minister who wanted to have all the nations represented all regions too. But the committee's proposals will deliver the worst and make it harder, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ball said, to bring those who who work and want to bring their current experience to the legislature.

Now, I approached this consultation on this report and I started with the data. Now the die had already been cast for the Hereditaries, so I excluded them from a spreadsheet that I cobbled together myself from different sources, including from the library. My Lords, it is a source of deep regret that the committee did not make a full data set available to all noble Lords, so we could do our own analysis, as it seems the crossbenchers did for themselves. This data should have been provided, but was not.

But what did I find when attempting to analyze that data? Well, take the arbitrary cut off of 80 years. I won't repeat the data, but a third of noble Lords would go for those aged 77 or over. Today they're in the count. But the decimation of life peers is not uniform by party. My analysis shows that 27% of the conservative members would suffer in forced retirement, but 37% of Labour, 42% of the Liberal Democrats and 45. Nearly half of the crossbenchers.

We've heard about the need for special treatment for the crossbenchers, but no one's mentioned in my hearing about the Northern Irish who would be absolutely, completely and totally decimated by this proposal. This is a material change in the composition, tone and expertise. It's a blunt instrument. It wouldn't just affect the individuals, it would affect the balance of the House. The committee should have spelt this out more clearly. Now let's look at gender. Of the 773 members at the time the committee sat excluding the hereditaries a third of women.

But when we look at the party breakdowns, yes, a third of conservative Baronesses would be expelled. But 43% of the Liberal Democrats and 45% of Labour Baronesses would be forcibly evicted. This would further aggravate the existing gender balance. And uncharacteristically, I find myself agreeing with Lord Sikka on this point. Now let's move on to experience. Unsurprisingly, those with the longest service tend to be the oldest are those who have served more than 15 years. The average age is 77, the average age of the house.

But this indicates to me that if past experience is taken as a guide, then on average, by arithmetic, nearly everyone who has completed 15 years will be out. My Lords, 15 year term limits have been discounted, but the arithmetic shows that retirement at 80 produces 15 year term limits by other means. Let's look at those second order consequences with the shortest proposals for the R&R on a full decant being much more than 15 years, we risk losing our entire oral history.

If mandatory retirement is forced at 80. Forced retirement at 80. And the arithmetic tells us there would be nobody to come back who could remember the old days? Let's just let that sink in. My Lords, we're volunteers who bring our outside experience on the days we contribute. When we don't attend, we don't get paid. There's no prejudice there. But if you have onerous minimum attendance requirements or other participation needs, then we start to become employees subject to HR and all the stuff that comes with it, including a ban on zero hours.

And of course we are the original zero hours. People would would Fridays be included with the average age of Baronesses being 68? We still have some of childbearing age, whereas the thought given to maternity rights and the needs to look after a very young family. Another point I'm in total accord with Baroness Bull on my Lords, these are big changes with unknown consequences. We're shooting in the dark without the data. There's a lot of opinion, but precious little analysis of the second order consequences.

And we should have expected that in this report. Rather like.
20:56
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
Strathclyde. >> I came. >> Into the House. I was well under the average age of your Lordships house. In fact, 30 years under. Sadly, my Lords, I am now over the average age, and under these proposals will retire from your Lordships House in 2033, but I welcome it. Retirement is a fact of life for most jobs. Most professions, as Baroness have. He said, and, my Lords, I work on the certainty it gives me planning my future life.

My Lords, there is life after the House of Lords, and I'm rather looking forward to it. And for me the proposals in the report are well judged. They allow for a transition which is not overly generous. They reduce our size to more manageable level. They allow an opportunity to refresh our membership and they deal sensitively in a way with the capacity issue. And I would say to Lord true, he set the challenge very early on, hours ago that I think it does enhance this House's ability to scrutinise legislation which.

And this is where I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker becomes ever more important the more we can see the failure of the House of Commons to scrutinise legislation. My Lords. I always welcome Lord True's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contributions. His affection for this house is always readily evident, but I did always readily evident, but I did think his language was unfortunate when he talked about expulsion, a when he talked about expulsion, a monster cull, a purge of a major cohort. I do think that was rather cohort. I do think that was rather overblown. And he then referred to peers. And it's a point my noble friend Lord Grocott made. My Lords, if only the noble Lord true supported my noble friend in his efforts to remove the elections for future hereditary peers.

When some died, my Lords, we wouldn't have had the cliff edge that we had with the loss of so many reditary peers at one moment. And the lesson for me, my Lords, here, is that incremental reform is the way forward. In the absence of substantive proposals, I see this as a sensible, incremental reform. And I have to say to Lord, true, I did think his response was as dispiriting as it was predictable. My Lords, would legislation be desirable? Well, be careful what you wish for.

I think this is a matter. We should handle ourselves and it's. Example of the House taking the initiative will paragraph 85 hold well, this house is well used to operating on conventions and understandings. I think it would hold, and that members would accept the principle of the retirement. My Lords, I am confident, too, that when it comes to the issue of future membership and size, I would just say to conservative members and their fear that the Prime Minister will flood the House with Labour peers, I'll just say I think their argument will be rather more convincing if Mr.

Johnson, if Liz Truss and Mr. Sunak had followed Mrs. May in showing constraints in appointments on Lord Hamilton's plea that reductions in size should be should occur through elections, I would just say to him, if I can see him, I would just say to him that I was here in 1999 when the hereditary elections took place. My Lords, it was not a pleasant sight. And thinking about how these elections would operate amongst parties, the fact is that there would be grandstanding in the chamber all during the period of elections.

There would be slates, there would be rival slates, and actually the whips would actually have an undue influence because that is inevitable. How it will be conducted. I do not think that that would be a wise thing to do at all. I acknowledge this is not substantive reform. I might anticipate what Lord Purvis is going to say in his wind up. I would just say to him that the reason the Clegg bill failed, largely because he never worked out what the respective powers of two elected chambers should be, what the relationship should be, what that would mean in terms of disputes about whether we needed a written constitution or not.

And we will never, ever deal and bring substantive reform forward unless we really tackle those hard issues. So, my Lords, finally, I would just say I hope my noble friend will listen to the crossbenchers in terms of future balance of size. Overall, this is such a sensible report. I hope my noble friend will agree to speed on with these proposals, and I hope your Lordships as a whole will support them.
21:01
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah. >> Well, it's a great pleasure to follow the typically very energetic Lord hunt. I enjoyed his contribution, as ever, and may I be contribution, as ever, and may I be yet another person to add my congratulations to the Committee and particularly its redoubtable and particularly its redoubtable chair, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, who must have been in a great sea of ideas and proposals and statistics, and somehow managed to find the islands of consensus in that. And that's a quite an achievement, my Lords.

We had a major debate on House of Lords reform in November 2024, and in that debate, I advocated a transitional arrangement for the retirement age whereby only new members were subject to the retirement age. I also advocated a participation rate of 10%, this number being set to take account of the low frequency, high impact members who, because of their professional careers, find it harder to attend. The report has come down in a slightly different place on both these issues, with a 20% participation rate, the crossbench with our larger number of low frequency, high impact members, would need to manage their attendances most carefully.

And I have looked at this a lot, but I assessed this as being difficult but possible. The first proposed mini cliff edge on age of July 2029 is in terms of managing the bench strength of the House, frighteningly, near appendix five makes it clear there could be 135 gaps, and when one looks at the actual names, some of the names are. Bring great expertise and experience here, and we would need to replace that. And thinking on how to ensure that the House retains its necessary skill and experience base would need to start very soon.

I and others therefore believe that the date of July 2029 could not be wisely brought closer than that. For that reason, I come to the issue peculiar to the crossbench, and it concerns, of course, the supply of replacement members. For us, we received today about two thirds of our members directly from the Prime Minister's office and his list, as it were, and about one third who begin in Holac. We are today actually 19.4% of the House. So we're below the 20%, which was the number that was suggested and accepted in the burns process.

And I think there's a logic behind that. But we will lose in the first tranche, up to 37 members in July 2029. And we heard from the excellent speech and all of the data, of which I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, right at the start of this debate, just how significantly horrible it is for us. We therefore need a supply of replacements and ensuring that we have appropriate new members with appropriate skills and expertise will greatly benefit our house.

And Holac in particular, has been very successful at finding good colleagues and I know has many suitable applicants for whom there is no place. And I'm looking forward very much to the noble Baroness. The leader's comments on this most important area for us, and I think for the House, in that constitutional debate of November 2024, I described the Prime Minister's prerogative as the biggest unfairness in all of the various arrangements that we have in our House. The power of one person, the Prime Minister, irrespective of the size or state of their majority, to appoint as many members as they like to this legislature is outsized and without precedent in any other liberal democracy at this time of challenged political stability, there is, I feel, a very strong case for the revision of this prerogative so that it cannot be misused following a future general election.

It is something of great importance to this House, to Parliament and to the country in general, and I'm hoping we will hear some comments from the leader. And I do feel it is time to have a cross-party discussion about this without any preconditions. In closing, I would be in favour of treading down the path that the committee has outlined, acknowledging the legal risks that Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and others have pointed out. But I say this feeling there must be associated clarity on the crossbench replacements and most importantly, there has to be action and discussions on the Prime Minister's prerogative.
21:06
Lord Smith of Hindhead Portrait Lord Smith of Hindhead (Conservative)
-
-
I'm sure that. >> All noble Lords will recognise how delighted I was when I saw that I was going to be the final I was going to be the final backbench contributor in this long debate today, but I understand that my claim to fame may have been pinched by my noble friend Lady Hooper, who will be speaking in The Gap. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, following my service on the committee, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members.

Our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, Bob Alton, and, of course, to the excellent House of Lords team that supported the committee during its deliberations. I approached my own contribution to the committee's task. Wearing a collaborative hat. Nevertheless, I think it is important to establish that this collaborative view was taken on the basis of the task that had been set out by the noble Lady, the Leader of the House, that the committee was created in order to come up with a feasible alternative to the government's manifesto commitment to introduce a retirement age of 80 and to create a new level of participation.

I think we have done exactly that. May I, my Lords, make my own position clear? I would personally not wish to see any introduction of a retirement age. I think many peers over 80 years of age make a valuable contribution to the work of the House, as has been demonstrated in the debate we are having today. Equally, I did not support the changes to the hereditary peers serving in your Lordships House. Another manifesto commitment. But that argument was lost. Reforming this House requires care, but care, as I have had to remind myself, should not become an excuse for inaction.

The public are entitled to expect us to examine our own arrangements with the seriousness we bring to legislation affecting everyone else. For me, the test was straightforward. Would these changes impact the ability of the House to carry out its work effectively, while at the same time strengthening confidence in the institution? The committee's principle retirement proposal is an age limit of 80, phased in for existing members from the 8th of July 2029, the initial threshold would be 85, falling annually until it reaches 80 in July 2034.

That timetable would apply irrespective of when the next general election is held. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson has said, there is an important distinction in implementation for existing members. The committee proposes a resolution expressing the House's expectation that they should retire, and this, of course, would depend on cooperation from members and party groups. But it would not, however, override the statutory rights of noble Lords. New members would be given a written undertaking before receiving their peerage to retire by their 80th birthday, and breaching that undertaking could attract sanctions, including expulsion.

We should, my Lord, be candid about what this means if the House chooses a system founded on cooperation, each of us must take responsibility for making it work. Agreeing a resolution would be would be the beginning of that responsibility. I also recognise that retirement is a deeply personal matter. A member may have devoted decades to public service and still feel capable of contributing. Any change should therefore be implemented with dignity. We can uphold a common rule while still expressing gratitude to those affected by it.

The second main proposal concerns participation attendance on at least 20% of sitting dates. This requirement would be implemented through standing orders using existing statutory sanctioning powers with expulsion for failure to comply, members on leave of absence would be exempt and in exceptional circumstances would be considered through a separate process. I would hope that anyone accepting a place in your Lordships House does so with an ambition to to contribute substantially. Equally, we should ask whether our rules allow someone with valuable experience to combine parliamentary service with continuing responsibilities elsewhere.

A doctor, an employer or a charity leader may bring particular insight precisely because they remain engaged in that work. The challenge is to secure a dependable commitment while preserving that connection. Alongside these changes, the committee reports deals with capacity issues and raises concerns about members on leave of absence, retaining access without registering financial interests. Finally, the report cautions that departures will not reduce, will not reduce the size of the House if they simply enable additional appointments.

That point deserves a clear response from his Majesty's Government members are being asked to accept changes to their own service, should be able to see how those changes contribute to a coherent approach to the future of your Lordships House. My Lords, I support taking these proposals forward. They are perhaps a start of a pyrosis. Their success, however, will depend on clear rules, fair administration and a willingness to honour the commitments we make. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that this House can address difficult questions about its own future responsibility, and in my view, we should take this.

This option, if we decide not to take it, then it would leave the government entirely free to implement its manifesto pledge to introduce a retirement age of 80 by primary legislation, and it would have every right to do so, and could do so under the Salisbury Convention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my thanks for the opportunity to speak briefly in the gap, and my apologies to my noble gap, and my apologies to my noble friend for pinching his slot. It's been a good and necessary debate, with contributions from the youngest member, Baroness Smith, as youngest member, Baroness Smith, as well as a number of fully competent and coherent older members. And I, and coherent older members. And I, of course, must declare a personal interest in this respect. I'm told that I'm now the longest serving woman peer, not the oldest, the longest serving.

I was introduced in June 1985, and like the noble Lord, Lord dubs, I still consider it to be a great privilege to serve in your Lordships House. During my 41 years here I have spent seven
21:13
21:14
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lady who spoke in the gap I have the. She knows that I have the highest admiration for the work she does, and the utmost affection. And. She has been and continues to be an outstanding ambassador for outstanding ambassador for Parliament as a whole, not just for this House, especially in Latin America. And the work that she does in that I am in awe of the service that that she does, she has done, notwithstanding the fact that this is a government manifesto commitment, these benches have decided that this is now a House issue.

And thus, if it comes to a point where we will be making decisions on a way forward, each of my colleagues will vote on their own judgment, rather than there own judgment, rather than there being a whipped line. There is, however, widespread support among my colleagues for the work done on the work of the committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor, and not only for the conclusions that the Committee has reached, but the means by which they have done it, and the consensus that they have sought.

My noble friend Baroness Parminter spoke succinctly and clearly right at the beginning of this debate a number of hours ago, and I agree with every word that she said. The noble Lord hunt very politely rebutted a speech I wasn't intending to make, but these benches do believe that this House should be fundamentally reformed. Our country's legislatures should be democratically chosen. And we believe, as others have mentioned in this debate, that there should be an opportunity for fundamental reform.

Some have asked in this debate about these proposals, what is the problem that we are seeking to solve? The noble Lord Howard and others, and indeed there are asking what the problem is of this House. A number of years ago, the conservative manifesto for the 2010 election had come to that conclusion and answered his question. And I quote from it, this is the conservative manifesto. We will work to build a consensus for a mainly elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence.

Perhaps the problem that continues to burden us is that of legitimacy and public confidence. We've heard of the need, and I agree with it, for a second chamber to be efficient, many made the case for reform, and others, however, said that it would be wholly wrong to break the link of a life peerage and a lifetime right to sit in this house, as most things about debates about our house that we've had today. Rarely there is much new. The House had previously passed after seven days of debate, a resolution which stated.

One that a strong and efficient second chamber is not merely an integral part of the British Constitution, but is a. Necessary to the well-being of the state and to the balance of Parliament. Two that such a chamber can best be obtained by reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords, and three. That a necessary preliminary of such reform in Constitution is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerage should no longer in itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

This was from 1910, and the last part was almost identical. What the noble Lord, the Duke of Wellington, was calling for in this debate today, and I agree with him. Moving the debate on that resolution was the Earl of Rosebery from the Crossbenches at that point in 1910. And I just wanted to quote as when he was introducing what he said, because we've heard from the noble Lord true and others, that it is to change the link between the peerage and the ability to sit in this House by right and not alter that, either by retirement or by participation, would be constitutionally improper and anomalous, the Earl Rosebery said in the debate.

I quote from Hansard. After all, nothing can be so anomalous as the British Constitution itself. We are afraid to introduce new principles into it. But really, when you come to analyze the Constitution itself, one might be inclined to think that a little novelty might to some extent improve it. This, indeed is a novelty that we are seeking to improve it. And 116 years later, this novelty perhaps is a little bit overdue. But more recently, for 50 years, some who sit in this House have served under age limits as a result of an innovation.

I personally don't believe there should be reserved seats for the established church of a nation south of the border where I live. But as with judges and the bishops, there seems to have become have been a settled view that age limits are appropriate and connected to efficiency and effectiveness, and indeed, the debate in the Senate in 1975, which I read was sensitive, which were pragmatic, and came to a conclusion that retirement linked with sitting in this House was appropriate.

51 years ago. And as with judges, the reforms in 1959, introduced by a conservative government to introduce age limits for those senior judges, was debated sensitively but pragmatically and with a degree of self-awareness, which, in the kindest possible way, I agree with the noble Lady, my lady Mariners Manningham-Buller, who indicated that we sometimes should see ourselves for the reality of how representative we are in society. In 1959, the then conservative government decided that for senior judges, the retirement age of 75 should be put in place of interest in that debate.

As we've heard today, it was the settled will that was appropriate age collectively of that profession. For those that apply the law, we are simply suggesting that we should consider for those who make the law also, five count Kilmuir introducing the measure, Lord Chancellor said on 8th December 1959 I would also put this point that there is no more difficult problem in life than to judge one's own dispensability and Expendability. We all find it, and some of us find that that problem gets more difficult as the years advance.

But I ask your Lordships to face up to the existence of that psychological problem. We need to do that in this House today also. Now we have for those that apply the law, and we should also. For those who make the law. This inevitably will mean that some valued colleagues will be retiring. And the noble Lord Grocott, as in his shrewd contribution, as all of us are, asked us to consider the time when we might have to cope. Of life without him in this House, I personally will grieve when he leaves this house, because I'm a great admirer of his.

Lord. Johnson indicated that Lord Hamilton's family might have to cope with him being with his family on retirement. So we've had both sides of the argument, but I'm certain that both this House and Lord Hamilton's family will manage to cope in both of those circumstances. Baroness Smith made the point that this reform should not be simply about making space, but it should fundamentally be about effectiveness and efficiency, and I agree with that. We heard from the noble Lord Kerr and the Lord, Lord Burns, about the previous attempts for reforms about the size of this House.

We have always shared that view. I would point out to Lord Kerr that our size of the Liberal Democrat benches are now exactly what they would have been if the Burns review had been implemented in full. And I'm certain both noble Lords would not wish our size of our benches in particular, to be diminished for any reforms going forward. I'm sure that they'll agree with on that one. When it came to the issue of age, I have to confess I was not expecting Dolly Parton to be mentioned in the debate today.

But the noble Lady Watkins did. I was trying to think of something witty to say, but I'm thinking that us working 9 to 5 might be a bit of a stretch. When. Yes, OK, I'll move on. So we heard about the the difficult issue of how representative we are as a non-elected chamber. Now, Lord did make the point and I, I do share it that a key part of our society in the elderly need to be represented, but I think that we should be a touch cautious to say that only the elderly in society can be represented by the elderly in this House.

We can't really persuasively make that argument unless you also argue that young people are all can only be represented by young people in this House. If you hold that argument. Then when I entered this house, I was only one of two members of the entire house under 40, who had. Both of us had to share the burden of representing 49% of the country's population. So we can't automatically make a direct link of the age of our profile here and those that we represent in society.

I also think that we must be cautious of the argument that if the committee's proposals are taken forward, that we will enter a constitutionally wrong type of expulsion, cull, sackings or purges. If we were referred to, obviously there will be a collective view about what an appropriate level of participation would be, as well as those who would be participating in it. The committee, I think, should be commended for doing the difficult task which has beset us for many years.

As the noble Lord, noble Lady Baroness Coffee, had indicated, what is the appropriate means by which we recognize ourselves as legislators, not as a voluntary think tank? Now, the setting of a 20% participation rate over two sessions, I think is reasonable. I personally believe going forward, this should be the floor and not the ceiling of what we should be expecting participation to be in a parliament, because we have a great responsibility to be legislators and active participation is required.

My Lords, we on these benches will work constructively going forward. We do wish to see reform, and what we will try to do is to reflect the way that the Committee worked constructively to try to find a way forward with the correct tone, with sensitivity, with a degree of pragmatism, but also try and approach as much as possible a consensual way, the way that the committee established. I commend them for their work, and I hope to see progress.
21:26
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this has been a considered debate and I thank the considered debate and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for the careful way in which she opened our debate. But, my Lords, the fact that we have once again spent an entire day of precious parliamentary time debating our future as a house will be surprising for those outside this chamber. Businesses and employers might have expected us to be debating National Insurance, the Job Killing Employment Rights Act and some of the highest energy costs in Europe.

Farmers may have expected us to be focusing on food security and the family farm tax, and most importantly, hard working families might have expected us to debate energy bills, personal taxation, housing delivery and rising unemployment. But my Lords, the future of this House is important. Any change to the rules by which we govern ourselves, no matter how important the issue it seeks to resolve, must be weighed against the imperative that we must preserve our ability to do our duty as a house and hold any government to account.

My Lords, across the House, I think we've heard a number of themes begin to emerge in our debate today. We've heard how these proposals will have a disproportionate, disproportionate impact on the Crossbenches if both rules are applied. As of today, 30.5% of the House would be affected. But my Lords, that rises to 46.6% of crossbenchers and my noble friend Lady Eden raised the issue. The important issue of effective running of this House, and particularly about effective committees in the House, should many of us so experienced peers be expelled.

A number of peers also raised the lack of clarity about the problem we are actually trying to solve with these proposals. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising reminded us just how many peers are actually present in the average division. By that measure, the House is clearly, my Lords, not too large. Sadly, my Lords, the Labour Party's manifesto gave no evidence for its claim that the second Chamber of Parliament has become too big, and I quote it, merely gave its unevidenced a diagnosis and prescribed a mandatory retirement age.

And my noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, told the House that it's not for this House to obstruct the government's manifesto commitments, but it is not incumbent on us to expediate the government's measures by amending our own rules in this House. The bitter taste of discrimination has been remarked upon in by many noble Lords in this session. In the last session, members of your Lordships House were expelled simply because they were of the wrong sort of peer.

This session we're being asked to expel noble Lords because they are of the wrong age, not that they have a lack of capacity to do the job. As we've heard from so many noble Lords this afternoon. And I thought the noble Lord, Lord speaker, spoke eloquently on this point, and I hope his noble friends will listen to him. My Lords, why can't we find a way to deal with capability? Why do we have to use age? Two? Tests are proposed in this bill.

My Lords age and participation. The participation process proposal is born of understandable concerns. The committee was right to reject a speaking requirement, which would only serve to encourage performative contributions. Mandatory attendance is not without its negative consequences either. Fundamentally, it is a good thing that noble Lords who are experts and still working at the top of their respective professions, may come to the House when they have something to say without having to clock in to retain the right to do so in the future.

Equally, my Lords, there are some peers who come to the House so infrequently that they make no real contribution to our public life. So the principle of participation is not unsupportable, but its implementation. Implementation, my Lords, must not weaken the House. Turning to age a mandatory age limit for sitting members of your Lordships House was a commitment made in a discredited manifesto of a discredited Prime Minister who longer, no longer holds high office. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reminded us of how the manifesto was broken on the day the Chancellor moved to freeze the tax allowance.

I wish Sir Keir Starmer well, of course I do, but his departure should give us pause for thought about how we go forward. Now. We on these benches have not sought to agree a collective

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position across our benches. Slightly surprised from the party opposite that went through party opposite that went through rather a lot of prime Ministers, but I don't remember them somehow calling the manifesto discredited calling the manifesto discredited at that stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at that stage. Ignore that comment. We on we on these benches have sought to agree a collective, not sought to agree a a collective, not sought to agree a collective position across our benches. It is for noble Lords to come to their own view. Of course, the front bench has a view, but we must always respect that of our backbenchers. But, my Lords, it is not for a single House of Parliament to expel parliamentarians. This is a proposal that has been brought forward by the government.

Let them bring forward a Bill. It is for Parliament to decide. Indeed, as my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in our debate, Parliament may wish to implement grandfather rights without opposing the government's plans for a mandatory retirement age. That was a solution when the Irish representative peers were expelled, and it is what the House voted for during the progress of the House of Lords Hereditary Peers Act in 2026. We also know a resolution of the House would not prevent peers refusing to leave.

In line with the committee's proposals, peers may fairly argue the test should be the competence, not the age of the peer. As the noble Lord Lord Blunkett referred to earlier, age is being mistaken for capacity. They may also argue that the other place is now a mandatory age limits. So why should they not? They should. Why should they not be voluntarily departing? But, my Lords, the thing is that all this is a recipe for a continuing rumbling discord in this House.

If we are to have mandatory age, let the government bring it forward and allow both houses to scrutinise it thoroughly. Perhaps the most painful part of the committee's report, my Lords, is the proposal that peers be expelled from the House mid session once they reach the age of 80. But of course grandfather rights would avoid that. Transitional arrangements are proposed in this report, but that does not mitigate the real impact mid-session expulsion will have on the work of peers.

If a peer knows that they are expected to leave the House in the middle of a session that will disincentivize them from being speaker, from being involved in speaking at Second Reading and tabling amendments at Committee stage in those final months of their public service. In that sense, our most experienced peers might step back sooner than they should, depriving the house of their wisdom and their good judgment. So therefore, my Lords, we must carefully deliver carefully consider all these issues.

In the case of previous expulsions, which themselves called real acrimony and unpleasantness, peers saw out the session. We oppose those expulsions, but the House at least accepted peers must be given the opportunity to complete their current work before being forced to leave the House of Lords. Surely that is the least we can do. Indeed, my Lords, we know that the average retirement age is not much over 80 at present. So therefore, why we doing this? We must balance the negative effect midseason expulsion will have on the scrutinising work of peers against the reality, the reality that these measures are solving a problem that exists in theory which which on average will have very little impact.

The impact of this change will not merely affect an average. It is not just a question of numbers behind the statistics we have heard today, our noble Lords who have dedicated their lives to public service, noble Lords who have known, worked with, agreed and disagreed with and they are the people that we voted alongside for many years. The moment of their expulsion marks the end point of a long and distinguished career in public service, and we must consider the individual impact of these proposals and how that affects our work as a House.

They should be given the opportunity to complete their work as parliamentarians, rather than being expelled. Suddenly as a guillotine falls. That would allow noble Lords to bring their contribution to public life to an end in the way they wish, as they deserve, rather than being bound by an arbitrary date. My Lords, the government's plans mean, as we've heard, the departure of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who won the House's support for his amendment. And we've also heard in the Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory bill earlier this year.

And as my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising reminded us, Lord Craig of Radley was 96 when he won that division. It will mean losing the expertise of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, from the opposition front Bench. We have benefit from his extensive ministerial experience and he helped lead the House in challenging the most damaging elements of the government's Employment Rights Bill. Under this proposal, we will lose distinguished noble Lords from the government benches to the noble Lord, Lord blanket and the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett Bennett Beckett, both singled out for special praise by the Prime Minister in his first speech as the leader of the Labour Party in July.

We will lose the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has so ably demonstrated his reputation as a defender of parliamentary scrutiny in the. In recent weeks the loss of noble Lords across the House is not just a point of personal pain, although we. On these do. On these benches do ask the government what have they done wrong? These friends of ours. It has an impact on our work, my Lords, losing the expertise of long serving noble Lords does risk the quality of our scrutiny.

It is that effect that we should put at the forefront of our minds. My noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition has set down four tests that we should consider in our deliberations. Will what we do improve the ability of the House to hold the government to account? Will it enrich the experience of the House? Will it enhance the independence of the House from recent or present governments? And lastly, will it enable the House and its committees to the revising work better? My Lords, those are the tests we must apply before taking any decision on the future of our House, and we believe the proposals before us fail.

Those tests.
21:40
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Bolton and all members of the committee who took part in the deliberations. They carefully deliberations. They carefully considered the issues. Many doubted that they could come back to this that they could come back to this House in the time it was allocated, with a proposal and with some consensus of a way forward that was workable. And it's only through the diligent work that they have undertaken that this report is before us today, and we should thank them, be grateful to them.

I think, oh, no one did thank them for their work. I have to say, my Lords, that no listen to abroad. They listen to a broad range of views I have tonight as well. And I think the government does welcome the approach they've taken and the spirit in which their report was, was produced. We've seen past attempts at reform of this place, and consensus often feels quite elusive. My Lords, I think we should recognise that this report has found a way through that.

And all members of the committee agreed with it. I've also been very interested to listen to all the contributions that have been made today. Of course, my Lords, this is a valuable revising and scrutinising chamber with expertise and dedication to public service. But the expectations of our members is not just about experience, it is also and their expertise. It is about their judgment through their life experience. We don't just ask members with experience to only take part in debates on their area.

They know the most about. We have them here for their judgment, and I referenced our manifesto, and I think the Labour manifesto at the last election was the first manifesto of which I'm aware, that recognised explicitly the good work of many peers who improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament. The noble Lords asked me about form following function. My Lords, we're not. We're not dealing with the function. We are happy with the function of the House of Lords. The criticism comes from how we are perceived and the way we are constituted.

And over the years, looking at these issues, we have produced and debated numerous reports the Cunningham report, the Burns report, the report, now the Taylor report. Each has brought a different perspective to issues. But then the frustration starts as Lord Burns alluded to very eloquently, how so little progress has been made. And I've spoken before about the track record of stagnation, stalled attempts at reform. And I've been clear we want to work with the House to get a better outcome, and how incremental change can make a difference.

My Lords, the committee and many members have spoken often have acknowledged that change is needed. And there's a general but not universal. I have to say, agreement that we do need that the House is too big, that we as we need more certainty about. As noble Lords are leaving the point made by many of the crossbenchers. You need that certainty when people are departing to look at how you can replace members and bring in new expertise and experience. We're also clear that we want to see an active contribution from all members of this House.

That's not to say that all members have to be full time members of the House. That wouldn't serve the purposes of what we seek to achieve, but we want members to value their membership and contribute during their membership. And that's why we made a commitment to mandatory retirement age and participation requirement. Now, some of the arguments against taking any actions report sounded very similar to those we've heard before. When debating other changes, noble Lady Scott said. These proposals reflect, I think she said 46% of the House.

She's wrong. My Lords, these proposals, I can't remember the exact percentage. Whatever percentage you said this. These proposals affect 100% of this House because every member of this House and future members would be affected by these proposals. They are completely non-discriminatory in that way. And the other argument often use is don't make this reform. We've got lots of other reforms in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place as well. They are. Discriminatory in the way that the fact that the people that are the fact that the people that are in here now came in not knowing that they were thinking they were that they were thinking they were staying for life, and the ones that were come in from now on will know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were come in from now on will know district. It's that point. Because if you look at that, she's sort of look at that, she's sort of implying there is no notice. That is the very reason why to give notice that these proposals, it sounds like they're going to happen tomorrow, do not come into. I did not heckle the noble Lady. She should listen as well. We did not. These proposals did not come into force or start to come into force until 2029, when there will be a retirement age of of 85, which until it goes down each year to 80 by the 2033, so 34.

So my Lords, just making the point though, that every time a change is suggested, there's those that say we want change, but not this change in this way and not now. So my Lords, I think often to survive and to do our best work, we have to embrace some kind of change. Now, noble Lords, asked Lord Sherman and others, why did I set up this committee? And I think he attributed motives which I would dispute why one of our manifesto on Lords reform issues looked at certain stages.

A number of issues are there, and when we were debating one of the early stages on hereditary peers, there were more amendments, there was more debate, there were more pages of amendments. And in Hansard about retirement age and participation. And a number of noble Lords on the other side spoke far more about that than they spoke about hereditary peers. Why aren't we doing anything about this? So that's why I set up the committee. I promised this House that rather than just bringing forward legislation, we would give this House the opportunity to examine and look at the issues, to give the House the opportunity, as noble Lords asked for, to take some responsibility.

My Lords, no good deed goes unpunished, does it? But there is an opportunity for us to look at this. That was the first point. But also I would have thought we would learn a lesson from the hereditary peers legislation. Time and time again, my noble friend Lord Grocott brought this House proposed legislation to say we'll end the by elections, which means no new hereditary peers come in and those that are there remain. That was rejected time and time again by the party opposite when they were in government.

That would have been a much smoother transition to take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place. So the noble Lord wants to intervene on me. Please do. But I'm just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I'm just. Not a government whip. That actually it was not the party opposite. It was individual peers. opposite. It was individual peers. It was a private member's bill and private members had a an authority private members had a an authority to challenge the proposal of the legislation. I'm sorry I disagreed legislation. I'm sorry I disagreed with them. I actually thought Lord Grocott, who is a friend of mine sitting opposite, was a was right on this issue. And I felt he was right.

But it was not a party thing. We are not doing this as a party. We're dealing with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lords. I hope you respond to. It, and I will do. But give me a chance to. I will say the noble Lord. True, when he was Leader of the Opposition, did tell me his party opposed it. It was not the party opposed it. It was not the party policy I even offered, and got support from the Shadow Cabinet for the legislation, and noble Lord for the legislation, and noble Lord will confirm it was rejected by the party opposite.

When they were in government. I was told it was a government. I was told it was a government did not want that policy, so I did try. It would have been a better way forward. And that's why I thought this was a better way forward as well. Let the House make decisions. When we talk about we need legislation and noble. Lord Wolfson, I think, paraphrased the report very well when he spoke. He took the comments they made in the report about the legislation. Does this House really believe that there is a one clause bill that will introduce a retirement age, that when it goes to the other end of the House of Commons, they're not going to change that number.

I think I think this House could take responsibility and also show that we are able to do so. So I hope that was the reasons why the issue of size is an issue. But I you know, if we're looking at the issue of the size of this House, as other noble Lords have said, the way to address this is not just through a retirement age. I don't think anybody thinks that will be the entirety of the way to address that. My Lords, the point I made a moment ago as well, when we've looked at these issues before and I said this during the passage of the Hereditary Peers Bill, this will be an opportunity for the House itself to bring forward proposals, to take action and to show that it can lead reforms rather than resist them.

And if this House wants to have an influence on policy that affects this House, the way to do so is to actually take action ourselves. And I hope we would consider that it's an opportunity here to do so. My Lords, the report before us today that we're debating has been genuinely led by the House. Over 100 members submitted evidence to the committee. And if you're interested in listening to views of the House today, I have been clear that I'm listening to the debate.

I haven't yet responded to the report formally through the government, but we'll do so taking note of this debate as well. My Lords, turn to the sort of specifics on the report. The committee does make the point, because members of this House tend to be appointed later in their careers, an average introduction of 59. It is entirely logical for our retirement age to be higher than other professions, and I think striking the balance of the age of 80 by 2034, which is later than judges, later than magistrates, later than our bishops, we don't lose the benefit of our peers experience prematurely, but we do address some of the concerns that have been raised and allows us to bring in the new expertise and talent we need.

Can I say I was particularly grateful to the committee for looking at transitional arrangements and the point that the Lady Scott didn't seem to take to was this this this does give colleagues a time to prepare, and I think that will help members know when they are likely to retire and how we can bring new members in. My Lords, the comments, I think, from the crossbenchers can I address particularly about 20%? It's never been formally recognised, but I think that is a fair size for the crossbenchers and I would certainly support that.

And I talk to the the convenor and others about it, but I think nobody in this House would want to see the crossbenchers fall behind that kind of level, but I do think that certainty would help in terms of trying to address the kind of skill set you need. The issue about the numbers of the Holac peers. I was quite shocked. I checked this earlier today. Two peers came in last year, but in 20 party opposite we're calling. Yes, there must be more like appointed peers.

It's rather a surprise then to find in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2023. There were no appointed peers. Now I think it's a matter for the Prime Minister, but clearly there has to be a much better allocation. The only reason I hesitate over the percentage of 20 is that the point I've made before is the imbalance around the House, and I think the house works better. As noted, if the two party of government major opposition are roughly the same size, and I think that's perfectly doable with the crossbench of around 20%.

But it does need to be worked with the crossbenchers and look at the skills you need. I hadn't said yes, but I will sit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

start? She seems to be referring to the special pleading made by the crossbenchers, to which I am crossbenchers, to which I am sympathetic, but I raised the point about the almost complete eradication of our colleagues from Northern Ireland. And would she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Northern Ireland. And would she address that point too? I think he was only talking about the DUP in that sense, because we are members on the benches, certainly from Northern Ireland as well. One of the things Ireland as well. One of the things I think we need to look at, and that's that we're bringing forward further proposals on this is the House as a whole has to be a better representative of the whole of the UK. Now that's been recognised. And part of the issue possibly is allowances.

And people talk about the financial cost of travelling further distances if they've got to stay overnight. So yes, totally agree. We'll be bringing forward further proposals and we have to have a house that is better representative on all kinds of levels. But certainly I think being more representative geographically is very, very important. Can I turn to some of the other issues that were in the report as well? I was pleased to hear the noble Lord. True and. Lady Coffee. Their comments were interesting about the leave of absence.

They think that should apply. The the the conduct should apply to all of them, whether they on leave of absence or members of this House. I thought the comments about not having a. Who. I referred to this a retirement association, whether it's called emeritus or not, is pretty irrelevant. I don't mind what it's called, but I think it's really, really important. One of the things that I suggested some time ago when we were debating the hereditary peers, Bill noble Lords may not be aware of the book club, but one of the things it's always concerned me about this House.

Often as members age, they come in a bit less, we see a bit less of them, then they get ill and we don't see them for a long time. Then they may come in occasionally and they just disappear and fade away. We don't show them the respect and the value that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What's on them by ever saying thank you or recognizing their work. It's fade away. We don't see them It's fade away. We don't see them again. I wanted members to know when they retire from the house, what is available for them. One of what is available for them. One of the things is they can vote in the general election as a local law. Booker asked me and asked me. That Booker asked me and asked me. That is in the recommend this booklet.

But it's a way of saying to members whose house we saying to members whose house we value your service. This is these are the kind of facilities that are still available to you, and you still remain our friends and colleagues and come in the house. It was really important we should do that. I was rather taken aback by the noble Lord True's comments at the beginning. I know he's a bit snippy generally, but he's cross about this anyway. And when he talked about the issue of capacity, because he knows that one of the first things I did when I became Leader of the House is talked to the administration about this.

And we also had a meeting through the usual channels to talk about this issue. I see a number of noble Lords who've been at these meetings acknowledging that, and we've progressed that work. As he well knows, it's work that's underway. So and I know the noble Lady Williams is not here. She's there. She's moved, as said. But my noble friend, the chief Whip has had a series of meetings following on from those initial meetings we had with the usual channels, with the clerk of the Parliament and other House officials, which have been productive, and they formed the basis for an agreement on a way forward to deal with the issue of capacity.

Now, my Lords, this is a sensitive issue, and I think we all want to treat our friends and colleagues above the level of respect and kindness. And that's been uppermost in the chief whips minds as they've been dealing with it. The next step is the chief executive chief. Whips and the convener are going to lead this work to take it forward. And we're bringing a report forward to be agreed in the usual channels and presented to the Procedure Committee. So that is work that we find very important and is ongoing.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm sorry if I appear snippy sometimes the opposition's snippy sometimes the opposition's permitted to criticise proposals or probe them. The point I'm making about capacity and I'm aware of the about capacity and I'm aware of the welcome action we agreed on power of attorney and we have had these discussions. My point is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, made, and which many people have made in this debate, and I made, made in this debate, and I made, which is this is an ageist and discriminatory measure in using age as a blunderbuss to take a lot of people out of the house, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett said, as a proxy for capacity.

Why do we not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

focus on capacity and let the capable aged stay here. My Lords? If this was a proxy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords? If this was a proxy for capacity, we wouldn't be bringing it forward, wouldn't do both at the same time. And I think both at the same time. And I think Lord misunderstands the reasons why retirement age has been proposed, and I was perfectly willing to and I was perfectly willing to accept that our manifesto was rather crude in its approach, that it said members would retire at the it said members would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they were 80.

I think the proposal brought forward by the Committee is much more sophisticated and thoughtful for members of the House. But the noble Lord seems to think that no member of the House should ever retire unless they want to. And if we constantly do that, the House will continue to grow in size, and we won't be bringing in new members with new experiences, new expertise to understand what's happening. This is not in any way to disrespect those members who have given many years service to the House and have given a lifetime of service in some signs, or those who thought they would be here until they chose not to be.

But it is about saying, how do we have an effective house? How do we do our best work as the House of Lords and best contribute to the role we have? My Lords, Noble Duke, Duke of Wellington has probably got a different title now that I can't remember. Made this comment about donors and I entirely agree with him. If the only reason somebody is being made a member of this House is because they've made large donations to a political party, that is entirely inappropriate and wrong.

He also talked about the size of the House and ensuring that we didn't create as people left. It wasn't a case of just creating a vacancy. He's absolutely right. I would agree with him on that one. The noble Lord Kakkar mentioned he was pretty concerned that the house could be packed and flooded with members in order to keep a government in power for a long time. And since that could have happened at any time in our history, whenever we did have an unlawful prorogation under a previous Prime Minister, which the courts were able to deal with, one thing I would say is this House does have the right to say how members are introduced, and it's not shown a secret.

As I spoke to a number of noble Lords opposite about this at the time. But he will recall that shortly after I became leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg said he would introduce a thousand new peers to force Brexit through exactly the way the government wanted. And there were a number of us that felt, if you tried that one on, would introduce one peer a week, it might take him some time. So there are ways of addressing that through our constitutional arrangements at the moment as well.

And my Lords, we've already taken some action and one time I have got some injury time. I think we take some action on Appointments Commission. We've already strengthened the transparency and appointments as well, and we've worked with House of Lords Appointments Commission to update its vetting reforms. I think the vetting has to be stronger, and we're looking at that. And indeed, in terms of my own party vetting processes, we've looked at that as well. I think finally, just sort of I want to reiterate, they did it with great aplomb and sensitivity.

I, I value the work of this House. But I also think if we say we are never going to change, we always do things exactly the same way then and leave others to make the change and take no responsibility ourselves. We don't get the change we want and I, my this is an opportunity for the House to show that we can manage our own affairs. We don't need things to be done to us, and we can show that we have a responsibility to the work we do.

I was struck by the noble Lady Parliament's comments, and I think I was a point to end on. If it's not led by us, it will. It will be led by those who know less and care less. My Lords, we have a responsibility.
22:02
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Portrait Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour)
-
-
To pay. >> My Lords, it's been a very interesting day and I think that all members have learnt something from somebody else. I'm not sure from somebody else. I'm not sure whether there are any two members in the House who actually agree with each other perfectly on every with each other perfectly on every aspect of what we're talking about, but I do thank everyone who has participated, and I won't even try to go through every individual contribution. My noble friend, the leader has done a great deal on that, but I do want to mention just a few of the themes that have come up.

The first thing that I think I should say is that several people have criticised the remit. Well, it's the remit we were given, but I would say on the basis of the discussion we've had today, if we've been given a wider remit, we'd still be here when for the next Parliament, because clearly these issues run very deep and there's a great deal of feeling on everything. Secondly, in terms of the size of the House, that was not in our remit, that we had to look th the House.

I would just say that house, which agreed the Burns report all those years ago, if that had been implemented, then perhaps we wouldn't be talking about these issues quite as much at the moment. And, you know, the lessons of the bill, I think, should be remembered in all of this in terms of the fact that we said little on appointments, we did very clearly say that if numbers are going to be reduced, then there are implications. If there isn't better consideration of the open door and the flow in, as well as the the flow out on how like, I'm going to be very careful about what I say because I'm a member of Holac.

But we do talk very clearly to prospective members about the commitment, and I think that that's appropriate. And that's probably something that has happened more in recent years than perhaps was the case previously. Questions have been raised also about the impact on the crossbenchers. And I think that the comments my noble friend the leader was making there about the years in which there were no appointments to Holac, as a salutary reminder that we do need to keep that drumbeat going, and it really is important that we don't do anything in a way which totally causes unbelievably difficult problems for any element in the House, and in particular, the crossbenchers.

But I was very reassured by what Lord Kinnoull said about this being difficult but manageable for the crossbenchers, and it is a fact that there is a larger number, a larger number of crossbenchers affected by the participation requirement. But when we looked at the numbers, quite a lot of those people who were in the under 20% weren't that far off it. And if it is over two sessions, then there is far more opportunity to be aware of where you are and get that kind of information.

Incidentally, one of the things that we suggested, in order to make it easier to be precise about your attendance, was that there should be an ability to clock in in the chamber with your pass so that everybody knows that you've actually been in the House, and that would make sure that it was a very proper record in terms of implementation. Lord Wilson quoted what we've said in the report, and it is true that if you do this by resolution, then you are actually talking about a self-governing house and peers respecting that.

And I think that Lord Smith made the point that it is incumbent on each of us to take responsibility for respecting exactly what the House wants to happen. And I think that was an important consideration. One of the things that I thought was most interesting about the discussion today was the question of refreshment, which quite a few members mentioned. Baroness Manningham-Buller mentioned it, my noble friend Lord Baroness Hayter talked about her experience in consumer affairs and in charities.

But somebody else now might have more recent experience. Baroness Watkins said the same about nursing, interestingly, that it was the women who mentioned these aspects. It really does matter that we can have up to date experience, and the pace of change in every field is accelerating, so we do need to make sure that we have got relevant and up to date experience. Now, there is a concern about the reputation of the House. We are not elected, we are vulnerable and therefore I think we have to do things that matter.

I think that was the point that Baroness Bull made, and Baroness Scott said we're being discriminatory if we talk about people who've been put here for life, having to leave. But, you know, it was a conservative government with the Liberal Democrats who produced the Clegg bill, which would have got rid of so many people and we could be abolished at any time. So, yes, we have a right, but it's not something that can never be changed. I do share Lord Grocott concern that there will always be those who oppose any change, but I think those who oppose any change should be the constant, should be aware of the consequences that bigger change very often catches up with them.

So I do think it's been a very useful debate, and I agree with what my noble friends have said. It is better that we take this on board ourselves and that we do not have changed, imposed upon us, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to find time in the not too distant future for the House to come to some decisions on these particular matters, and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page