Member

Incidentally, it would have one further impact. If the Government were to contemplate the application of such a provision—which would be consistent with their manifesto commitment, because it would bring the retirement age down to 80, albeit over a period of nine years—the consequence would be that, at the end of those nine years, there would be fewer than half the excepted hereditary Peers still in this House, even if no other steps were taken to expel them at an earlier point in time. So, instead of dealing with just one manifesto commitment, they could, by applying themselves to a reasonable and sensible provision on retirement, address two manifesto commitments. I invite them to give serious consideration to such a proposal. I also invite the Minister to explain very clearly in her reply why the manifesto commitment on retirement appeared. What was the logic? What was the reasoning? What was the policy behind it? Perhaps she could touch on the attitude of her Back-Benchers towards that particular issue.