---

Retirement and Participation Committee Report

My Lords, I thank the committee for its work and its report, and I note the limits of its remit. I support the principle of a retirement age. As an unelected House, there is good reason for us to put in place boundaries where the electorate may decide our fate differently if given a choice. But logical thinking forces me to confront reality. I also know that the electorate may well not choose any of us to serve, given half the chance. So, before we make structural changes that do not result in us becoming an elected Chamber, it is important that we are clear what problem needs fixing for us to best serve the public in our appointed state.

I very much echo what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde 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. 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 its work. If we are to change that, we must understand and address the part we have all played in causing that to happen.

Members of this House often criticise 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, that does not make them non-political, and what constitutes “political” in the eyes of the public often crosses party lines. This problem reached its nadir after 2016 when this House enthusiastically defied the majority of leave voters in its efforts to prevent Brexit being implemented and did all it could to dilute legislation to tackle illegal immigration.

All that said, that does not mean that this House does not still do good and important work, and 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 cannot ignore that the case for us continuing in this unelected, appointed state is harder to make.

As to what is 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. Although I can see why some support a minimum participation level for all Peers, if we want a more expert and less political appointed

House then we will need more, not fewer, Peers, since any credible measure of effectiveness would require them to attend less.

The Labour Party manifesto restated its commitment to,

“replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”.

Not only do we not know what that might involve but it is a promise that we have heard before. Perhaps 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 that it has helped to create. In doing so, it has exacerbated this House’s greatest weakness of being a political Chamber without a democratic mandate. Expelling the over-80s alongside the hereditary Peers will not 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 or even no impact on declining public trust. More importantly, recent history tells us that the consequence of these changes risks making matters much worse.

5.25 pm