Lord True (Con)

My Lords, it might be helpful for me to intervene at this point and set out the position of the Official Opposition, although I assure the House that I will listen carefully and weigh every contribution, including those from the many who may disagree with me. First and foremost, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for introducing this important debate in such a typically thoughtful fashion. Even if I do not agree, I thank her and all the members of her committee for their careful work and balanced report. Incidentally, I agree with the recommendation on leave of absence and declaration of interests; I hope that will be taken forward. I declare an interest: like the noble Baroness, I will be expelled under these proposals—in my case, on 8 July 2033. Let us get the language right: “mandatory retirement” for sitting Members means expulsion. I confess that I find that prospect painful. No doubt like others here, I ask: what have I done wrong? Appendix 5 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 currently sitting would have failed the proposed 20% threshold. Taken together, that is a monster cull, on top of dozens of Peers recently expelled by this Government. Of course, I concede that, as the report says, the figures may well be significantly lower. Some of us lined up for the sack may die and some may retire voluntarily. After all, as the noble Baroness said, the average retirement age is 82. Eighty-two? Eighty? What problem are we trying to solve in inflicting such a purge on the House? Unlike the Select Committee, I am not constrained by terms of reference, so I will address some wider questions and ask: why are we here? Some have said it is to reduce our numbers. I have 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 nearly half the House, potentially. 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? If not numbers, is the reason party balance? 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 Conservatives does not justify a mass cull, and actually the group that would suffer most from the report’s proposals are the Cross-Benchers, who could lose half their number. We should be careful what we wish for. No, 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, the Government will slam down a legislative guillotine. Really? Wherefore 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 Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, all remarkable figures, much valued here. But, under these plans, the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, are booted out on 8 July 2029, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on 6 June 2031. The sixth of June: it would be nice if that day could be remembered for another D than the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Is this really the new Prime Minister’s wish, or is someone else driving all this? Can our Leader explain? Two criteria are proposed for the cull: age and participation. First, Labour wants to expel hundreds of Peers simply because they are older. There are many over 80 who make extraordinary contributions to public life, here in this House and elsewhere. Can we imagine, on 21 April 2006, someone rapping on the late Queen’s door saying, “Happy birthday, Ma’am. 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 and leadership would this nation have lost? Is not 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 incapacity: which more risks our disrepute? Might cognitive tests be a better focus than the blunderbuss of an age bar? Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether this alternative is being considered? 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 0.1%. Who then from the ranks of the elderly will speak in our Parliament for them? We should be cautious about silencing the leavening voice of experience. Every noble Lord will judge this matter freely, but let me say a word as Leader of the Opposition. My party will not support the 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 seek to legislate, attempts may be made to amend a Bill to ensure that 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. 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 that this House alone would seek to decide who its Members should be. It is not for the Government or a single House to decide who sits in Parliament; 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 that Peers may simply say, “No”—I have heard much fruitier language—when their birthday comes, and 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. There are reasons—perhaps 72 million reasons—why this is also a bad political precedent. Let us suppose Reform forms a Government. Prime ministerial patronage would allow a Reform leader, even in a minority Government, to do what he says he would: pack this House. His new Peers might also pass a resolution. They might say their party was elected to sweep away the establishment, so any Peer who 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. I submit that this House should be cautious about laying that precedent on the table. Away from such a looming example, what is to stop a future House passing a similar resolution excluding this or that category of Peer? These are murky waters, but to us the constitutional principle 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. On participation, I recognise that many wish to see action. The Select Committee rightly rejected the measure of performative speaking. It was sensitive to the truth inherent to a House of experts: some will come only when they have something worthwhile to say, and we will be glad to hear them when we do. As the report points out, there will be cases in which unforeseen illness or other commitments may make it hard for Peers to attend. We should not build intrusive mechanisms that probe sensitive personal circumstances. There are other questions. On attendance, in a typical 150-day session it would cost £11,130 per Peer just for the daily allowance, simply to establish the threshold right to remain. 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 bears further reflection on the details, building on the committee’s excellent report. To conclude, if we are to go forward, I submit that 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 judgment, these proposals, however ingenious and constructive, would fail those tests. They gild the manifesto thorn bush but do not remove the thorns. 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, its Members and the voice of the elderly in the councils of our nation.