Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I was new then, but I am reminded of the March 2024 debate in the Moses Room on veterinary medicine regulations, which was going nowhere until a Cross-Bench Baroness told us that she was a retired president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons: she proposed a course of action, and of course we did that. The noble Baroness needed to come only once in that Session and she would have earned her corn, because participation in and of itself is not the point of this House, nor, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, is attendance. We must also recognise that not all participation is equal.

I do not come from that far away—I come from Norfolk—but it is just impractical to commute daily. A debate can keep you late, and then you have to get to Liverpool Street on the Circle Line—it is crazy. So my wife and I 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. There is a world of difference between nipping in on the District Line from Fulham and making the slog from York, Norfolk, Penzance, Edinburgh or, in particular, Northern Ireland. Minimum attendance quotas work against the richness that 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 and regions represented; the committee’s proposals would deliver something worse and make it harder—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said—for those who currently work to bring their experience to the legislature.

As I approached the consultations in the report, I started with the data. 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 the Library. It is a source of deep regret that the committee did not make a full dataset available to all noble Lords, so that we could do our own analysis, as it seems the Cross-Benchers did for themselves. This data should have been provided but was not.

What did I find when attempting to analyse that data? Take the arbitrary cut-off of 80 years. I will not repeat the data, but one-third of noble Lords would go—those aged 77 or over today would make the cut. But the decimation of life Peers is not uniform by party. My analysis shows that 27% of Conservative Members would suffer enforced retirement, but the figures are 37% for Labour, 42% for the Liberal Democrats and 45%—nearly half—for the Cross Benches. We have heard about the need for special treatment for the Cross Benches, but I have heard no one mention the Northern Irish, who would be absolutely, completely and totally decimated by this proposal. This would be a material change in composition, tone and expertise. It is a blunt instrument that would affect not just the individuals but the balance of the House, and the committee should have spelled that out more clearly.

Let us look at gender. Of the 773 Members in place when the committee sat, excluding the hereditaries, one-third were women. When we look at the party breakdowns, one-third of Conservative Baronesses would be expelled, but 43% of Liberal Democrat Baronesses and 45% of Labour Baronesses would be forcibly evicted. This would further aggravate the existing gender imbalance. Uncharacteristically, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on this point.

Let us move on to experience. Unsurprisingly, those with the longest service tend to be the oldest, and for those who have served more than 15 years, the average age is 77, the average age of the House. This indicates to me that, if past experience is taken as a guide, on average, by arithmetic, nearly everyone who has completed 15 years will be out. Fifteen-year term limits have been discounted, but the arithmetic shows that retirement at 80 produces 15-year term limits by other means.

Let us look at the 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. Force retirement at 80 and the arithmetic tells us there would be nobody to come back who could remember the old days. Let that sink in.

We are volunteers who bring our outside experience on the days we contribute. When we do not attend, we do not get paid. There is no prejudice there. But if we have onerous minimum attendance requirements or other participation needs, we start to become employees, subject to HR and all the stuff that comes with it, including a ban on zero hours. We are, of course, the original zero hours people. Would Fridays be included? The average age of noble Baronesses is 68, but we still have some of child-bearing age. Where is the thought given to maternity rights and the need to look after a very young family, another point on which I am in total accord with the noble Baroness, Lady Bull?

These are big changes with unknown consequences. We are shooting in the dark without the data. There is a lot of opinion but precious little analysis of the second-order consequences, and we should have expected that in this report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will do, given a chance. The noble Lord, Lord True, when he was Leader of the Opposition, told me that his party opposed it, that it was not his party’s policy. I even offered and got support from the shadow Cabinet for the legislation and the noble Lord will confirm that it was rejected by the party opposite when it was in government. I was told that then Government did not want that policy. I did try. It would have been a better way forward, and I think this is a better way forward as well. Let the House make decisions.

On the need for legislation, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, paraphrased the report very well when he addressed its comments. Does this House really believe that if there is a one-clause Bill to introduce a retirement age, they are not going to change that number when it goes to the other end, to the House of Commons? I think this House could take responsibility and show that we are able to do so. That was the reason I set up this committee. The size of the House is an issue, but the way to address it, as other noble Lords have said, is not just through a retirement age—I do not think that anybody thinks that will be the entirety of the way to address that.

I made the point a moment ago, and I have said it when we have looked at these issues before, including 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. If this House wants to have influence on policy that affects it, the way to do so is to take action ourselves. I hope we will consider that. We have an opportunity here to do so.

The report before us has been genuinely led by the House. Over 100 Members submitted evidence to the committee and it has been interesting to listen to the views of the House today. I have been clear that I am listening to the debate. I have not yet responded to the report formally through the Government but will do so and take note of this debate as well.

I turn to the specifics of the report. The committee makes the point that, because Members of this House tend to be appointed later in their careers, with an average age at introduction of 59, it is entirely logical for our retirement age to be higher than in other professions. By striking the balance at the age of 80 by 2034, which is later than for judges, magistrates and our Bishops, we do not lose the benefit of a Peer’s experience prematurely, but we do address some of the concerns that have been raised and it allows us to bring in the new expertise and talent we need. I was particularly grateful to the committee for looking at transitional arrangements. The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did not seem to take to was that this gives colleagues time to prepare. It will help Members know when they are likely to retire and address how we can bring in new Members.

On the comments from the Cross-Benchers, the 20% has never been formally recognised but I think it is a fair size for the Cross Benches. I would certainly support it, and I will talk to the convenor and others about it. I think nobody in this House would want to see the Cross-Benchers fall behind that kind of level, but certainty would help in trying to address the kind of skill set needed.

On the numbers of HOLAC Peers, I checked this earlier today and I was quite shocked. Two HOLAC Peers came in last year. The party opposite suggested that there must be more HOLAC-appointed Peers, so it is rather a surprise to find that in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2023 there were no HOLAC-appointed Peers. It is a matter for the Prime Minister, but clearly there has to be a much better allocation. The only reason I hesitate over 20% is, as I said before, the imbalance around the House. The House works better, as noted, if the party of government and the Opposition are roughly the same size. That is perfectly doable with a Cross Bench of around 20%, but it needs to be worked out with the Cross-Benchers and looking at the skills needed.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, she seems to be referring to the special pleading made by the Cross-Benchers, to which I am sympathetic. However, I raised the point about the almost complete eradication of our colleagues from Northern Ireland. Will she address that point too?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord was only talking about the DUP, because we have Members on our Benches from Northern Ireland as well. One of the things we need to look at, and we are bringing forward further proposals on this, is that the House as a whole has to better represent the whole of the UK. That has been recognised. Part of the issue is possibly allowances; people talked about the financial cost of travelling further distances and having to stay overnight. We are bringing further proposals; I totally agree that we have to have a House that is more representative on all kinds of levels, but certainly geographically, which is very important.

I turn to some of the other issues that were in the report. The comments about leave of absence from the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, were interesting, in that they think the point on conduct should apply to all, whether they are on leave of absence or Members of this House.

I cannot remember which noble Lord referred to this, but the comments about a retirement association—whether it is called emeritus or not is irrelevant; I do not mind what it is called—were really important. It is 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 booklet, but one thing that has always concerned me about this House is that often, as Members age, they come in a bit less and we see a bit less of them. Then they get ill and we do not see them for a long time. They may come in occasionally, and they just disappear and fade away. We do not show them the respect and the value that we put on them by ever saying “Thank you” or recognising their work. They just fade away and we do not see them again.

I want Members to know what is available to them when they retire from the House. They can vote in a general election, as the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Dubs, asked me. That is in the booklet, and I recommend it. It is a way of saying to Members who retire from this House: “We value your service. These are the kinds of facilities that are still available to you, and you remain our friends and colleagues and can come to the House”. It is important that we do that.

I was rather taken aback by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord True, at the beginning—I know he is generally a bit snippy and he is cross about this anyway—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 was talk to the Administration about this. We also had a meeting through the usual channels to talk about this issue. I see a number of noble Lords who have been at these meetings acknowledging that. We have progressed that work, as he well knows; the work is under way. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said this. My noble friend the Chief Whip has held a series of meetings, following on from the initial meetings we had, with the usual channels, the Clerk of the Parliaments and other House officials, which have been productive. They form the basis of an agreement on a way forward to deal with the issue of capacity.

This is a sensitive issue, and I think we all want to treat our friends, colleagues and other noble Lords with respect and kindness. That has been uppermost in the Chief Whip’s mind as he has been dealing with it. For the next steps, the respective Chief Whips and the Convenor will lead this work to take it forward and will bring a report forward to be agreed in the usual channels and presented to the Procedure Committee. That work is very important and is ongoing.

UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have listened to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, give an absolutely wonderful oration and to demonstrate how the one-in, one-out principle might usefully be applied on Wednesday.

A deal is not a deal until it is done. Regardless of what happened before July, we need to understand that Labour had a political choice: either put Britain’s national, financial and security interests first, or hold on to that naive but mistaken high-minded soft power illusion which the Government thought they had bought last summer by paying to give away the Chagos Islands.

How easy it must have seemed on those warm evenings last summer among the government opinion-formers, sipping prosecco and negronis in those north London townhouses—you know, the ones where they have knocked the breakfast room into the kitchen and put in American-style fridges and those step-free bifold doors out on to the terrace. After one too many, perhaps, they thought it was a rather good idea to pay to give up land and then ask for permission from our enemies to use it, having been kidded by their learned friends that international law required it, from a case in which the UK was not even a participant. They were craving approval from marine and maritime bodies that had no nexus over sovereignty and have no business pushing us around.

What we see here, and I thank the Library for pointing it out so clearly, is that the legal basis for giving up the Chagos Islands is not a judgment but an “advisory opinion”. The Government are playing by absurd rules that defy logic or common sense and are not even rules anyway.

I am not a property lawyer, but I know these simple truths: freehold is best; avoid restrictive covenants because the covenant holder can have you over a barrel; possession is only 9/10ths of the law; and when you transfer land to someone else, it is customary to be paid for it. In my career I have always ensured that lawyers are on hand but not on top. But not in this Government. Land and real estate are about selling a dream, but Labour’s lawyers have bought us a nightmare.

We have benefited for centuries from strategic land—on both sides of the Suez Canal; in Cyprus, as my noble friend Lord Bellingham reminded us; and the Chagos Islands—that support our soft trade and hard power. Giving up one side of the Suez would always be unwise in any circumstance, but who would have anticipated the wrong-headedness that has been exposed so quickly as we contemplate the Middle East tinderbox?

This deal generationally weakens us. It is an indefensible move from those in charge of our defences. Giving up land is bad enough; to not have been paid for it makes it worse. Worse still, this happened over the heads of the Chagossians; without their consent or consultation, their land has been taken and passed around as a chattel by a Prime Minister who claims to have their human rights as the golden thread that runs through his actions—what double standards.

In times like this, as my noble friend reminded us, paying billions to give away land so that another country can pay off its debts when we do not have enough money to give our pensioners the winter fuel allowance beggars belief.

Then there are the conditions and covenants. Sharing military secrets is bad enough, but the Library tells us that

“activities related to the military base will comply with international law”—

that old chestnut again. Can the Minister tell us when an “advisory opinion” became a statement of the international law, and who will determine the law when we do want to contemplate military actions at pace?

When the facts change, you need to alter your position. Boy, have the facts changed in the Middle East in the last few months. We must not ratify this deal. Let us be clear: the Government are acting as an enemy within and acting for those who are prepared to trade a mere “advisory opinion” into a legally binding treaty that will tie our hands on the flimsy pretext that we might avoid criticism from the usual suspects, including our enemies. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but if this deal gets done, history will show it was at this moment that Labour showed even more how out of touch it is.

In saloon bars up and down our nation, this is the moment when everybody will see that Labour’s values are not British values, because this deal weakens us—nationally, economically, financially and militarily—to please that nebulous cohort of judges and arbitrators in foreign lands who must think we have gone mad to swallow their advisory twaddle.

The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, says that it is a good deal for the Mauritians, and she is right there. Labour has made a choice: to prefer the views of the prosecco wing of the party over those of the pie-and-a-proper-pint, common-sense socialists, who know a dud when they see one—and this is a dud.