Contribution
My Lords, I am grateful to the 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, but 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 that he would wish me to highlight several concerns, particularly in relation to the recommendation of a mandatory retirement age. The report itself acknowledges one of the principal concerns raised in evidence: the potential loss of the 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, judgment and habits of scrutiny acquired through judicial office.
The Ecclesiastical Committee, for example, benefits from the specialist expertise of judicial leadership, and that contribution helps to shape both the character and the quality of the committee’s deliberations. Indeed, the Ecclesiastical Committee has benefited from senior judicial chairs since its formation in 1919. Our current chair, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, offers invaluable expertise on the interpretation of Church law and the measures passed by General Synod, along with her understanding of Church processes and structures. I know that these Benches and the committee are 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 can provide. More broadly, if a significant cohort of Members were required to retire within a relatively short period, we would 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 worth acknowledging that Bishops 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; rather, my right reverend friends have retired in batches. The loss of their 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.
While I welcome the support and the debate that the report has initiated, I am not yet convinced that we have fully considered the implications for the functioning of the House, the operation of its committees or the preservation of the expertise on which Parliament depends.